Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

INCOME TAX

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF HER MAJESTY'S HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Austria) Order 1993, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Indonesia) Order 1993, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Uzbekistan) Order 1993, and the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport) (Saudi Arabia) Order 1993 be made in the form of drafts laid before your House.

I will willingly comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Small Businesses

Mr. Henderson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met leaders of the engineering industry to discuss assistance for investment for small businesses.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): There are frequent contacts between the Government and the engineering industry. The best incentives for increased investment are low inflation, low interest rates and a growing economy, all of which are in place.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister confirm that in his talks with the engineering industry its representatives have told him of the industry's deep commitment to an investment-led recovery, which would not only help companies that want to retool British industry but bring stable growth and help the companies that want to compete in export markets to invest? In that connection, will he also confirm that the industry sees deregulation of health and safety as at best an irrelevance and that what it wants are capital allowances to help companies throughout the industry and, specifically, investment grants to help companies in the small business sector to invest in new technology?

Mr. McLoughlin: When we talk to industry we are continually told of the requirement to bring some deregulation to some of the forms and regulations with which it has to comply. I wholly agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about investment; in his region there has been more than £3 billion worth of inward investment,

which was attracted by a Conservative Government. It would never have been attracted by a Labour Government committed to the social contract.

Mr. Ward: On the subject of investment in small businesses, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important not only that the investment be used productively, but that debts can be collected promptly? Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to ensure that all Government Departments pay their bills promptly, especially to small businesses?

Mr. McLoughlin: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget some time ago that the Government were consulting on the whole question of small business debts. Moreover, in the previous Budget a commitment was given that all Government contractors and subcontractors would be paid within an acceptable timescale.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister realise that 90 per cent. of small engineering companies employ fewer than 20 people and have special difficulty in meeting the exacting new standards on zero defects and quality control? Why have the Government decided to scrap in April their cash help to small engineering companies to meet those quality control standards?

Mr. McLoughlin: The simple fact is that what industry and small businesses want are fewer regulations. They understand that quality is important for attracting their customers—and that is exactly what they are doing.

Renewable Energy

Mr. Jonathan Evans: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the principal sources of renewable energy supplies in the United Kingdom in 1993.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): In 1993 approximately 1,400 MW of large-scale hydro-generating capacity were operational. A further 270 MW were available from other renewable energy sources, mainly under the non-fossil fuel obligation.

Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is lie really convinced that enough is being done to encourage a variety of renewable energy products? Is the non-fossil fuel obligation really encouraging diversity in the renewable energy industry?

Mr. Eggar: I know that that is a matter of widespread concern. The whole House shares a commitment to increasing the proportion of our electricity generated from renewable sources. None the less, concern has been expressed about, among other things, the proportion of wind farms that may be established under the non-fossil fuel obligation. I shall consider that issue and I welcome the inquiry that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs is making on the subject.

Mr. Clapham: Is the Minister aware of the study conducted before Christmas by the Association for the Conservation of Energy which showed that burning gas in the home was about 60 per cent. efficient, while burning electricity generated by gas in the home was only 40 per cent. efficient? Does the Minister agree that that is a waste and that there is a need to reconsider the energy sector and prepare a new framework for energy before it is too late?

Mr. Eggar: The Government's energy policy was clearly laid out in the White Paper following the coal review. It is important to increase the efficient use of energy and it is also important that we meet out Rio targets through, for example, increasing the proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources. The hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise that electricity generated from gas is much more environmentally friendly than electricity generated by coal.

Gas

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received since he announced his conclusions on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the supply of gas.

Mr. Eggar: There has been a widespread welcome for the decision of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to abolish the monopoly and introduce competition to supply all parts of the gas market from 1996.

Mr. Bellingham: Has my hon. Friend noticed that over the past few years the real price of gas has fallen? Has he also noticed that Eastern Electricity has announced that it will reduce its prices to customers? Does he agree that that is extremely good news for all people who are concerned about VAT on household fuel and that that would not have happened had it not been for privatisation?

Mr. Eggar: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, gas prices have fallen in real terms since privatisation by 22 per cent. Even after the full implementation of the VAT decision, we shall see a real-terms decrease in bills for gas domestic consumers of about 7 per cent.—a considerable achievement. I welcome the decision by the electricity companies to increase competitiveness. Indeed, in my constituency, I shall be opening the headquarters of Eastern Electricity for the supply of gas to customers throughout its area. Competition is good for all consumers.

Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister accept that the reorganisation of British Gas in Scotland will cost more than 1,000 jobs? Does he accept that, in addition to the loss of jobs through the setting up of five new business units, if those units are not headquartered in Scotland, there will be a loss of management control? Why is it that in the British Gas company, as in the House, Scotland supplies the bulk of the energy, but has none of the power?

Mr. Eggar: Why is it that the hon. Gentleman always looks backwards? Why does not he campaign for competitors to British Gas to come in and open up their headquarters in Scotland and in the north-east?

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that millions of senior citizens and other low-income consumers deeply resent the standing charges on gas, on electricity and on telecoms? Does he appreciate their concerns and will he consider doing something about it?

Mr. Eggar: Why has not the hon. Gentleman got to his feet to welcome the recent reduction in prices announced by BT and the subsequent price reductions by Mercury? Why has he not welcomed my announcement about the reductions in British Gas prices? Why has he not welcomed the fact that the decision of my right hon. Friend

to increase competition in the gas market may lead to competitors looking carefully at the level of standing charges?

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that Liberal Democrats very much welcome the Government's conversion to opening up the gas market to greater competition, which we called for at the time of the privatisation of gas. [Laughter.] Indeed we did. Is he aware of the statement by the Director General of Ofgas to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in the past week that, as the differential in distributing gas does not vary by more than 2 per cent. anywhere in the United Kingdom, the introduction of competition should lead to further downward pressure on gas prices? Is he satisfied that under those circumstances, a relaxation of the price formula of British Gas is necessary?

Mr. Eggar: I am very satisfied with the decision made by the Director-General, as the hon. Gentleman would expect. The hon. Gentleman's selective quoting of the position that the Liberal Democrats may have taken at one time or another is becoming a laughing matter.

Post Office

Mr. Hain: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the chairman of the Post Office to discuss his review of its future.

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I met the Post Office chairman on 18 January and discussed a number of issues relating to the Post Office review.

Mr. Hain: Will the President of the Board of Trade confirm the statement in a letter from the general manager of North Thames and East Anglia Post Office Counters that the Post Office
has agreed targets with the DTI
for hundreds of local post office closures and conversions? Does not that reveal grubby collusion between the Government and the Post Office to run down the post office network and to privatise by the back door?

Mr. Heseltine: The only grubby collusion is the technique that the hon. Gentleman uses to make in this House allegations that have no foundation. He will know that the vast majority of organisations in Post Office Counters are private sector organisations over which the Government have no control.

Mr. Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have a letter here—

Madam Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order later.

Mr. Alexander: Was my right hon. Friend able to tell the chairman of the Post Office that privatisation would not be wholly welcomed among Conservative Members, particularly those whose constituencies contain rural areas? Was he further able to discuss with the chairman the increased commercial freedom that he seeks to enable him to operate the Post Office as a normal business and to keep the dead hand of the Treasury away from its operations?

Mr. Heseltine: I hear what my hon. Friend says. It is extremely difficult to see how one can give commercial freedom to the Post Office to invest public money unless


that money is subject to public expenditure rules. The dilemma that the Post Office faces is that overseas Governments are privatising their post offices, enabling them to compete with ours. The judgment that the House must make is how we can enable the Post Office to use its resources to fight as a major British industrial organisation—which it is—in a competitive world that is growing tougher all the time.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does not the President appreciate that the Post Office is a success story and that everything that the Government are doing is putting that success story at risk? Is he aware that the delay that he has caused over the review is causing confusion to management; that the Treasury demand for an even bigger share of the profits is robbing management of the money for investment; and that, as a result, the Dutch public post office is now picking up business in Britain? When will the Government start backing British business instead of creating openings for foreign business?

Mr. Heseltine: If that is an example of the new thinking of the Labour party, I can understand why the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has announced his resignation from the House. Of course the Post Office is a success story. The issue is how we enable it to be more successful. How do we enable it to face the fact that the Dutch are privatising their post office to enable it to compete here?

Mr. French: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the care and thoroughness with which he is conducting his review of the Post Office? He is quite right to resist quick solutions. It is more important that the eventual answer should be the right one. In reaching his decision, however, will he bear fully in mind the formidable international competition that the Post Office faces?

Mr. Heseltine: I am well aware of the growing international competition—and, indeed, the competition from a range of other service providers in this country—which has been eating into the Post Office's market in recent years. We are certainly concerned to ensure the health of the rural post office network and have been looking, and will continue to look, at a number of ways in which we can open up the increasing market for rural post offices. I was delighted that we were recently able to take the decision to enable them to sell fishing licences.

Nuclear Review

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will make a further announcement on the nuclear review.

Mr. Eggar: The Government will announce the terms of reference for the review and how it will be conducted as soon as possible.

Mr. Hughes: That is a helpful answer.
Given that the Prime Minister has recently gone on record stating his commitment to growth in the nuclear industry, how can a review of the nuclear industry carried out by the Government be anything other than a charade and a sham? Even if he cannot announce when we will have the review or what its terms of reference will be—all promised for last year—will the Minister at least tell us whether the Government will examine whether the industry is economically viable and environmentally

acceptable and deal with the question of waste as well as the functioning of the industry? May we have some idea whether it will be a proper review, or will we have to go to the courts to get an independent adjudication, as Greenpeace and Lancashire county council did over THORP?

Mr. Eggar: I am always willing to accept praise from whatever source. I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I hope that it will not be too long before we can make an announcement including the terms of the review and the way in which it will be conducted. The way in which the hon. Gentleman enumerated the various different factors itself illustrates that it is most important to spend time getting the terms of reference absolutely right and to try to satisfy as many of the numerous interested parties as possible.

Mr. Whittingdale: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that work has started in the past week on a visitor centre at Bradwell power station in my constituency? Does he agree that such centres have a valuable role in spreading the message that nuclear power is one of the safest, most economic and most environmentally friendly forms of generation available?

Mr. Eggar: I do agree—[Laughter] It is necessary for the full facts about the benefits of nuclear power to be made available to the public. It is unfortunate that Labour Members simply laugh at the idea that members of the public should be fully briefed on all the facts in an objective way.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Could Ministers help me with a little research on these matters? Could they ask their civil servants to research reports that there was an outbreak of leukaemia in West Cumbria during the second world war—40 years before the Sellafield plant opened?

Mr. Eggar: I am very interested to hear that from the hon. Gentleman. Of course, I shall find out whether there are any records of that and, if so, the implications of them.

Textiles

Mr. Riddick: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the effect of GATT on the British textiles industry.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): The GATT agreement will lead to the phasing out of the multi-fibre arrangement over 10 years, which will be largely balanced by improved GATT rules to deal with unfair trading practices, better intellectual property rights and lower tariffs in many export markets.

Mr. Riddick: Have there been any developments since my Adjournment debate two weeks ago on the continuing punitive levels of duty being levied on British textiles by some countries, especially India, Pakistan and Indonesia, which makes it almost impossible for our companies to export to those countries? Could I ask the Minister and, indeed, the European Commission to continue to apply pressure to those countries to reduce their tariffs? At the same time, I welcome the GATT deal, which is very good news for most British exporters.

Mr. Needham: Since the Adjournment debate on 27 January, we have continued our efforts to ensure that


maximum pressure is brought to bear on Indonesia, India and Pakistan by the Commission. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry went to Athens to exert that pressure only last weekend. There was a preliminary meeting between the Commission and the Indonesians on 1 February and another meeting is being arranged with India and Pakistan on 4 February. As I said to my hon. Friend, the deadline for the GATT proposals to be agreed is 15 February and I have nothing further to report at this stage, except that we are continuing to exert maximum pressure on those countries.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister realise that in six days' time there must be some definite negotiations because British jobs are at stake? Does he accept that a group of textile employers said at a meeting I attended that they regarded the GATT deal that the Government had entered into as selling the textile industry down the river? In Bradford, 11,000 direct jobs in the textile industry are at stake and real pressure, including the threat of retaliatory action, must be exerted against the 100 per cent. tariffs for British textiles that are exported. The Government negotiated entry by those other countries into the United Kingdom market, which is extremely unfair and disadvantages textile workers here.

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman, as so often happens with Labour Members, welcomes the GATT agreement in the general and then attacks it in the particular. Indeed, they have a policy: if I contradict myself, so what? The Government, through the Commission, fully understand the concerns expressed by the woollen industry. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) in the Adjournment debate, we will continue to put all the pressure we can on the Commission and the countries involved. Certainly, if we do not achieve our objectives, there is action that we can take under the multi-fibre arrangement, which still has some 10 years to run, either from 1 January 1995 or 1 January 1996, to apply pressure to those countries to come round to a more sensible arrangement.

Mr. Waller: May I emphasise to my hon. Friend yet again that there is genuine concern in the House and throughout the textile industry about the enormous tariffs of 80 or 100 per cent., referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, which are applied by Indonesia, Pakistan and India? Before the GATT agreement is ratified in Marrakesh in mid-April, will he ensure that no stone is left unturned in emphasising to our European Union negotiators that the jobs that will be lost in this country if we must fight this lack of free trade will never be regained?

Mr. Needham: I give, as I have already given, an undertaking that the Government will do everything that they can to ensure that we continue negotiating up to the last minute of the last hour. I should say to my hon. Friend that in Indonesia the tariff limits on wool cloth, woollens and other textiles are 40 per cent. We are talking about getting duties down to a maximum of 35 per cent. The real problems occur in India, with 85 per cent. tariffs, and Pakistan, with 125 per cent. As I have said, we will do everything that we can to reach a satisfactory conclusion for our industry.

Mr. Bell: In addition to the high levels of import duties in those countries, does not the additional question of child

labour have to be faced? Will the Minister look again at the exchanges between the Leader of Opposition and the Prime Minister on 16 December, when the GATT agreement was announced to the House? Is not it a fact that child labour is turning out textiles in many countries and is not it also the case that there are no health or safety provisions for other workers in those countries? Should not we build new platforms, after the Marrakesh final act in April, which prohibit forced labour, which give protection to workers and which are against discrimination?

Mr. Needham: If there are breaches of United Nations conventions on issues such as child labour, the Government and other European, OECD and G7 countries will make sure that they are taken into consideration in our trading arrangements.
However, I think that the hon. Gentleman, once again, is trying to get it both ways. The whole point of GATT and free trade is to open up world trade and particularly to allow goods and services from the developing world to come into the developed world without the high barriers which existed in the past. GATT sets out to do that and the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have welcomed it, although I am never quite sure how real that welcome is.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Council of Ministers yesterday announced the abolition of 6,000 quotas and, in particular, that quotas applying to the Baltic states would be abolished in the new year? However, none of those quotas included the textile industry. Will my hon. Friend urge his colleagues on the Council of Ministers to move to the next step of textile quotas?

Mr. Needham: I agree with what my hon. Friend said about quotas, although I must express considerable disappointment about the way in which the toy quota was finally settled. Quotas on textiles come within the phasing-out arrangements of the multi-fibre arrangement. That is one of the weapons in our armoury to ensure that what is happening in Indonesia, Pakistan and India comes out more favourably for the British woollen industry.

Coal Industry

Mr. Steinberg: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the privatisation of the coal industry.

Mr. Eggar: Both the President and I meet the chairman regularly to discuss the privatisation of the coal industry and other matters.

Mr. Steinberg: Is the Minister aware that the National Rivers Authority has instructed British Coal to continue pumping mined water from the closed pits in the Durham coalfield? Is he further aware that if pumping were to cease it could be calamitous for the River Wear in particular, where the pollution would be horrendous? Will the Minister give myself, my constituents and all the people who live in the Durham area a commitment that he will instruct British Coal before privatisation to continue to pump? Will he also instruct the body that takes over after privatisation to keep pumping until it is 100 per cent. certain that pollution will not occur?

Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the widespread concern about this matter in the north-east and the hon. Gentleman


and others brought a delegation to see me. I assure him that, while the matter is the responsibility of the NRA as the regulatory body, the responsibilities that currently rest with British Coal will be transferred to the coal authority following the enactment of the Coal Industry Bill. I am sure that the coal authority and the NRA will co-operate, in the same way as co-operation exists at present between British Coal and the NRA.

Mr. Churchill: While congratulating Malcolm Edwards and R. J. Budge on their recent purchase of certain redundant pits from British Coal, and while sending my best wishes to the miners in the pits involved, may I ask my hon. Friend to say when the hard-pressed electricity consumer may expect to see passed on the 30 per cent. reduction in the cost of the generator's principal source of energy? What are the Government doing to ensure that those vast reductions in fuel costs are passed on to the consumer?

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the interest of the private sector in British Coal pits. Opposition Members do not seem to realise that no fewer than eight pits are in negotiation or are controlled by the private sector. Clipstone, Betws, Trentham, Coventry, Rossington, Markham Main, Calverton and Wearrnouth are all under discussion. Why do not the Opposition welcome the success of the private sector in its negotiations with British Coal? As for my hon. Friend's specific question, that is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply, who is in discussion with both the generators and the electricity supply companies.

Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware of the huge anger and sense of betrayal of more than 1,000 miners who work at Ellington in my constituency at the fact that, only weeks after it announced a plan to keep the colliery in operation with a reduced work force, British Coal has announced its closure? When he meets the chairman of British Coal, will he do everything in his power to ensure that, at a time when there is genuine private interest in taking over that colliery, the pit is kept in a condition in which it can be taken over by someone else and the machinery essential for that is kept in the pit?

Mr. Eggar: I am aware, of course, of the understandably strong feelings in south-east Northumberland about the proposals announced by British Coal. The chairman of British Coal has made it clear that if a decision were made to close Ellington—we cannot prejudge that because there is a modified colliery review procedure—the pit would be kept on a care and maintenance basis until the main privatisation took place. He has given me an undertaking that the equipment at Ellington and the other pits that were the subject of consideration last week under the general review procedure will not be removed from the pits unless it is essential to do so for safety reasons or because the reserves of a pit for closure are reallocated to adjacent mines. That is a major step forward.

Mr. Batiste: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the real concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House during the Coal Industry Bill Second Reading debate? We expressed concern that the guidelines in mineral planning guidance 3, and the consultation process that takes place under them,

should provide for a much tougher regime to prevent unsuitable applications for opencast mining in green-field sites from proceeding.

Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the strong feeling on the matter. It is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Consultations are being held on MPG3. I personally brought to the attention of the Department my hon. Friend's speech in the Second Reading debate on the Coal Industry Bill.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there is a suggestion among the British Association of Colliery Management people—[Interruption.] I will say it again. Is the Minister aware that there are people in BACM—the senior management of British Coal—who are saying that by March they could be down to six or eight pits only? Will he confirm that that is correct? Will he acknowledge that, in the past 18 months, the man who is sitting at his side—the President of the Board of Trade, who aspires to be the next leader of the Tory party—had the gall to talk about saving pits? He conned Parliament. He conned these tinpot Tories who talked a good fight but were no good in the ring. What is more, he conned the British people. At the same time, the Government are allowing subsidy for nuclear power and the French interconnector link. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Eggar: I think that the Liberal Democrats sitting behind the hon. Gentleman wound him up too much. It does the coal mining community and the country no good to use the scaremongering tactics which are such a feature of the hon. Gentleman's approach. Why does not he welcome the fact that Clipstone, Betws, Trentham, Coventry, Rossington, Markham Main, Calverton and Wearmouth, and perhaps other mines, are pursued for privatisation by private sector companies that want to make a success where British Coal has failed?

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that many people recognise that privatisation is the only hope for a competitive cost structure in the coal industry and that only a competitive cost structure can guarantee the long-term future of employment in that industry?

Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend—privatised industry has a great future.

Mr. O'Neill: On the question of a competitive cost structure, will the Minister tell the House why Manton colliery, which produces coal at prices lower than the world spot market price, is going to be closed? Does not that show that the Government have no concern for the coal industry and that the promised subsidies last year, which have saved no jobs whatsoever, were a complete sham and a distortion of the truth?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has been shadow energy spokesman for almost two years. Surely he should know that such issues are the responsibility of British Coal and not the Government.

Mr. David Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of the coal industry is the best thing for the miners and for the production of coal? From 1974 to 1979 the lot opposite closed 10 times more pits than we have closed in 14 years.

Mr. Eggar: I wish that I could put my points across with such elegance.

Aerospace Industry

Mr. Lewis: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how he proposes to assist the aerospace industry in the north-west.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The aerospace industry in the north-west benefits from a positive business environment, Government support for military and civil exports, specific Department of Trade and Industry programmes to help the industry and substantial orders from the Ministry of Defence as a customer.

Mr. Lewis: I put a similar question and the Minister gave a similar answer a month ago. What happened? In that month, British Aerospace at Lostock has shed another 300 jobs. Since the Conservative party came to power in 1979, about 5,000 jobs have been lost at that plant. When will the Minister really do something instead of coming here and talking bull?

Mr. Sainsbury: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition of the consistency of my answers. I suppose that if I changed them, I would be accused of making a U-turn. Naturally, we all regret the job losses, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the change in the requirements for defence equipment underlies those losses and I am sure that we all welcome the reasons for that change. The problems that that change is causing the aerospace industry are widespread. They are worldwide and do not affect merely this country.
If I can give the hon. Gentleman two examples, between 1989 and 1993, the United States aerospace industry is reckoned to have lost one third of all its jobs; and the German industry, Deutsche Aerospace, recently announced 16,000 job losses. We regret the job losses at Lostock, but it is inevitable that changes in defence requirements will lead to changes in the requirements for staff.

Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many of my constituents work for British Aerospace at Warton. Does he agree that, during the past decade, the aerospace industry has made a consistent and positive contribution to the United Kingdom balance of payments—£2·3 billion last year. In contrast to the negative comments by Opposition Members, the British aerospace industry is a continuing success and will go to even greater strengths once the European fighter aircraft 2000 is built by many of my constituents.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the industry's considerable achievements, especially in exports. The industry is uniquely helped by the Government and has received more than £1·5 billion of Government support since 1979.

Mr. Eastham: Now that the Minister has expressed regret at the massive loss of jobs in the aerospace industry, what positive measures is his Department taking to give some positive encouragement to the aircraft industry for the development of the C130 large aircraft?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from the reply that I just gave that the Government have given consistent and very substantial support to that industry through a number of programmes. The Royal Air Force's choice of aircraft is a matter for my right hon. and

learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. However, I can give an assurance that my Department is keeping a close eye on the alternatives and on their importance for the British aerospace industry.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the sale of Rover to BMW will allow British Aerospace to concentrate on its core activities—in particular, its aerospace activities in the north-west? Does he agree also that it is still important that Government launch aid is available for long-term civilian projects in the aviation industry?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am glad that my hon. Friend draws attention to the advantages to the British aerospace industry of BAe's recent sale of Rover to BMW. That matter was rather overlooked by the carping critics of the Opposition. BAe emphasised the advantage when, in its letter to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, it drew attention to the fact that this arrangement enabled it to progress plans for the turbo-prop and regional jet businesses based at Prestwick and Manchester.

Mr. Fatchett: During the past six weeks, more than 1,000 jobs have been lost in the aerospace industry in the north-west of England. The people affected will be leaving British Aerospace with a small redundancy payment after many years of service. What sort of leadership is British Aerospace giving to the industry when its chairman, John Cahill—a tax exile for nine months of the year—is to receive a golden handshake of £10 million? Would not it be better for British Aerospace to improve its business practices? Does not the Minister agree that such behaviour is totally unacceptable and totally wrong for Britain's aerospace industry?

Mr. Sainsbury: I suppose that it would be too much to expect the hon. Gentleman to recognise the benefits to British Aerospace's aircraft interests that have been brought about by the sale which I mentioned, but perhaps even he will recognise that the figures to which he has referred—figures that he, like me, will have seen in the press—arise from the very significant increase in the value of BAe's shares. That increase reflects the market—[Interruption.] That is a typical reaction from the Labour party. A company is successful—it increases its profits and its value—and the Labour party complains. Labour Members want to see failure, not success.

Small Business

Mr. Steen: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement as to the progress of his deregulation unit in reducing the number of rules and regulations affecting small businesses.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): We announced about 450 deregulation measures on 19 January. Many of these will substantially benefit small businesses—for example, the abolition of the statutory audit, which will remove a useless cost from tens of thousands of small companies; and the rise in the value added tax threshold, which will free up to 75,000 small businesses from the tentacles of VAT. In future, we shall judge regulatory proposals first by the results of a small business litmus test.

Mr. Steen: In view of the tremendous commitment by the President yesterday and by the Minister responsible for deregulation, which is supported by both sides of the House, will the Minister instruct the deregulation unit to alter the individual divisional objectives that apply to the working practices of the 11,389 officials in his Department? Will he provide an incentive-related pay scheme so that the more rules and regulations his officials get rid of, the more they will be paid?

Mr. Hamilton: I hope that if we were to introduce such a scheme, it would apply to Ministers, too. All officials in the Department of Trade and Industry are fully committed to deregulation, as we well understand that that goes to the very heart of the competitiveness of British industry. It is the wealth that industry produces which pays the wages of all of us.

Mr. Loyden: Is the Minister aware that most people will see this latest gimmick of the Government as a very thinly disguised means of reducing the protection of workers in industry in order to maximise profit? Is not that the sole intention of the legislation?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman, who, as a union wrecker and a keen supporter of the dock labour scheme, had an important part to play in the destruction of the port of Liverpool, knows quite well the consequences of absurd regulations for the jobs of British workers. I am happy to say that, as a result of our getting rid of the dock labour scheme, British ports are expanding again. The port of Liverpool is doing more trade today than it did in its heyday in the 1950s.

Mrs. Browning: Is my hon. Friend aware that the announcement made this week to modify rules on portable electrical appliances will be warmly welcomed, particularly by hoteliers in my constituency? They say that the burden on their businesses caused by regulations, especially those relating to testing electrical appliances, has been onerous and has affected their profitability.

Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We are keenly aware of the advantages that will accrue to smaller businesses and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said, particularly to tourist businesses in the west country, if we continue to take an imaginative approach to deregulation.

Trade Descriptions Act 1968

Mrs. Roche: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to extend the scope of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to embrace services as well as goods.

Mr. McLoughlin: The Trade Descriptions Act has always applied to services as well as to goods.

Mrs. Roche: Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain why the Government have done nothing to protect consumers from rogue cowboy firms such as those that install double glazing, carry out car repairs or service household appliances?

Mr. McLoughlin: The simple fact is that the hon. Lady's question referred to the Trade Descriptions Act and she asked whether it would embrace services as well as goods. I have explained that it does. Under section 14 of

that Act, there were 171 prosecutions in 1991–92 and 238 in 1992–93. On conviction in a magistrates court, a person is liable to a fine of up to £5,000 or, in a Crown court, an unlimited fine or two years' imprisonment.

Regulations

Mr. Burden: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the procedures established by his Department to determine whether a particular regulation is a burden to business; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: If Parliament is to take rational decisions, hon. Members must be informed in advance of debates of the costs that proposed legislation would impose on business. In future, a compliance cost assessment will be published with all such regulations put before Parliament. The procedures for preparing CCAs are set out in a guide which I have placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Burden: Is the Minister aware that, although existing statute allows Ministers to replace health and safety regulations if they are out of date, the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which received a Second Reading last night, gives Ministers the power to repeal health and safety legislation without replacing it? On the day when it has been reported that accidents and ill-health at work will cost employers between £4 billion and £6 billion, will the Minister tell the House of one health and safety regulation or law which Ministers would not have the power to repeal if the Bill becomes law?

Mr. Hamilton: All that we seek to do by that provision in the deregulation Bill is to repeal legislation that is wholly redundant; we already have that power under legislation passed since 1974. The Health and Safety Commission has requested that change because it recognises that its cause is not assisted by all sorts of nonsense cluttering up the statute book. The Agricultural (Ladders) Regulations 1957, for instance, which regulates the number of nails that must be put in wooden ladders, and all sorts of unnecessary restrictions have been replaced by new British standards and more modern legislation.

Sir Michael Neubert: Is it not less than satisfactory that the only safeguard against ministerial misjudgment in the exercise of delegated powers of deregulation is the consideration of a 90-minute debate on statutory instruments that are unamendable by the House? My hon. Friend may argue that there is consultation before the orders are drafted. In the case of the proposal to abolish charter market franchises, the representations were 10:1 against, but the Government are still going ahead with it. What confidence, therefore, can people have in consultation?

Mr. Hamilton: It comes as no surprise that the majority of those who responded to that consultation exercise possessed the monopoly privileges which we propose to abolish. Of course they were against taking away from themselves an undesirable privilege which they now possess, but I am satisfied, as a result of consultation, that the British public generally will benefit from the removal of antique, mediaeval restrictions which have no place in the modern age.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister regard as an antique, mediaeval regulation the protection of consumers,


particularly in relation to small lorry firms which, in future, will be able to park lorries under six tonnes wherever they wish and, once they receive licences, will no longer be monitored by the Department of Transport? Will he ensure that he consults the Department about the safety of our constituents before he goes ahead and abolishes rules that protect them?

Mr. Hamilton: I make it absolutely clear that we neither need nor desire to reduce public protection in health and safety or in other areas. In the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, as the hon. Lady will know if she has read it, there is a requirement that necessary protection should not be removed if the order-making power that we seek will be used. I do not know the details of the case that the hon. Lady mentioned, but if she would like to write to me about it, I should be happy to look into it.

Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware of reports that the European Commission is intent on banning through regulation the use of the United Kingdom standard 240-volt plug? Is he further aware that the intention is to replace it with the inferior European two-pin model? How does he anticipate that that would affect the United Kingdom electrical market? What can be done about that?

Mr. Hamilton: I am happy to say to my hon. Friend that no such proposal is before the Commission. If it were, I am sure that we would pay the greatest possible regard to the criticisms that he has made.

Libya and Iraq (Sanctions)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has of the cost to British trade of the implementation of sanctions by the United Nations against (a) Libya and (b) Iraq.

Mr. Needham: It is impossible to say what the cost has been to British trade of the implementation of United Nations sanctions against Libya and Iraq.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask a question that offends conventional wisdom? In view of the quite appalling and horrendous nutrition-related infant mortality that some of us have seen in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, with rows and rows of babies expiring; the ambiguities of policy, those grey areas highlighted not least by Sir Robin Butler in front of the Scott inquiry this morning; and the profound doubts as to whether the Libyan state was the prime mover in the Lockerbie crime—God knows that was awful, because it was the police in my area who had to clear it up—could not the Government at least consider whether this sanctions policy is justified and whether they have to go the whole way with Washington? After all, Iraq and Libya were traditionally British markets, not American markets. Let us not be American led.

Mr. Needham: I know the hon. Gentleman's depth of feeling on this subject, but it is not going along with Washington—it is going along with the sanctions that were approved and imposed through the United Nations. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the consequences were Britain to be the only one out of 187 countries to opt out of the sanctions arrangements that were agreed and accepted through the United Nations Security Council. I cannot imagine that that would find more favour with Opposition Members than with Conservative Members.
The fact is that the problems in Iraq are the problems of its regime. The blame can hardly be placed at the door of the Governments who are imposing the sanctions. United Nations sanctions have been specifically designed, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, to try to ensure that medical assistance and help get through to the people who need it. Let us be clear that the problems of the people who are suffering in Libya and Iraq come from the fact that they are governed by barbarians.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the nature of the reply, may I ask for a Thursday Adjournment debate in your gift?

Mnufacturing Industry

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what study he plans to conduct of the competitiveness of British manufacturing with particular reference to (a) exchange rate competitiveness, (b) investment and (c) labour productivity; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Heseltine: I have already announced that the Government will be publishing a White Paper on competitiveness in response to the forthcoming report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee.

Mr. Mitchell: Before the President of the Board of Trade rushes to print, perhaps I can help him. Is not it correct that, in a market economy, the chief determinant of manufacturing success is price competitiveness and that that, in turn, is largely determined by exchange rate competitiveness? Cannot that be demonstrated by looking at the increase in manufactured exports since White Wednesday, which is four times greater to those non-EEC markets against which our devaluation was greatest than it is to EEC markets? That being so, is not it crazy to allow the Bank of England to sabotage an historic opportunity to recover the manufacturing base of this country by encouraging the pound back up against the deutschmark?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will have his own views on what constitutes competitiveness; but he may well wish to apply the test provided by today's CBI survey, which reveals that all regions report strong growth in both business and export optimism. That is excellent news for British industry, the economy and the country, and disastrous news for Labour.

Sir Thomas Arnold: Do not our recent labour market reforms mean that Britain's international competitiveness is now better than ever?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has made his point briefly, and extremely well. Today's economic indicators are as favourable as any that I can remember.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, although we are competitive at present and the dollar-pound exchange rate is good for British industry, over recent months—since White Wednesday—the pound has been in danger of appreciating against the deutschmark? Not only is that bad for our position in Europe but we have come up against German manufacturers which are reducing prices like mad in other markets throughout the world. While we await a report that


will be of great interest to all hon. Members, is it not vital to maintain exchange competitiveness with the deutsch mark in Europe and elsewhere?

Mr. Heseltine: I accept at once that it is necessary to remain competitive amid all the current factors. The Labour party should bear in mind the effect that the imposition of the social charter would have on British industry.

Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the terms of trade and the internal position of British industry have never been better than they are now? We have a real chance to flatten the international competition both inside and outside Europe. Will my right hon. Friend use this opportunity to scotch the myth that ours is a low-wage, sweatshop economy? It is our total payroll costs that are lower; we are not a low-wage economy. We are beginning to achieve high productivity, which will enable us to afford high wages.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a remarkable set of economic statistics behind us and our productivity has risen very sharply. That is another reason for us to cling on to our advantages, rather than frittering them away in the manner threatened by so many of Labour's policies.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the President of the Board of Trade really believe that we can compete with other nations when we invest less than they do? Is he aware that last week's figures show investment in manufacturing industry to be 12 per cent. down on the 1979 figure? They also show that under the Conservatives, manufacturing investment, as a percentage of gross domestic product, has in no year matched any year's investment under Labour. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to give us good news, will he tell us in what year the Government will return manufacturing investment to where it was before they ran it down?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be preoccupied with the results obtained from investment. He doubtless includes in his figures our investment in a range of nationalised industries that then lost money. The real test lies in the fact that British exports are at an all-time high, in a real market with real products and profits earned by real people—as opposed to phoney policies from a phoney party.

Defence Industries (Redundancies)

Mr. Burns: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives his Department is taking to help redundant workers in defence-related industries return to work.

Mr. Sainsbury: In addition to the substantial help available to redundant workers from the Department of Employment, areas that are adversely affected by defence changes have benefited from the European Community Konver initiative, which was worth some £.15·5 million to the United Kingdom. As a result, a regional technology centre in my hon. Friend's constituency will receive £300,000 and Essex training and enterprise council will receive £125,000.

Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he appreciate the sense of pleasure and relief that was felt when the Essex bid was found to have been successful, before Christmas? Does he recognise the pleasure and surprise that Chelmsford will feel today on learning that the amount provided to assist the training of redundant defence workers will be £125,000, rather than the £54,000 that was expected?
I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me, and will not feel that I am pushing it too much, if I ask whether companies in Chelmsford, or elsewhere in the industry, might qualify for any other assistance.

Mr. Sainsbury: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the fact that he and his constituents were misinformed about the scale of the assistance for Essex TEC. That was due to a minor administrative slip-up—"a bank error in your favour", as they say.
As my hon. Friend will know, the Commission's Green Paper on Community initiatives states an intention to continue with Konver as a multi-annual programme. Now that we have succeeded, as a result of British efforts, in making sure that Konver is available outside areas covered by objectives 2 and 5(b), we must wait to see the outcome of the considerations of the suggestions in the Green Paper and whether there is a successor scheme that would help companies and employees in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Denham: I welcome the successful Hampshire bid for the Konver programme, but will the Minister explain why the unanimous feeling in the Hampshire area among local authorities, business people and trade unions is that local councils and Europe care about jobs for defence workers, but they cannot point to any tangible initiative by the British Government to provide for them?

Mr. Sainsbury: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a wide range of schemes to help workers who, unfortunately, have lost their jobs in an area. We have, however, given specific help by changing tack seminars and changing tack manuals, and through a range of DTI schemes for companies in the defence sector, to help them adapt their output so that they can adapt to the changing demand for defence equipment. It would be unrealistic not to recognise that we do not want to reverse the reasons for that change of demand.

Speaker's Statement

Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make about the procedure to be followed later this evening on motion No. 4, relating to the Government's assessment of the medium-term economic and budgetary position.
This motion is the first to be made under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which requires the assessment to be reported to the House for its approval. In this respect, tonight's proceedings will be analogous to the procedure on an affirmative resolution for the approval of a statutory instrument, when, as stated on page 341 of "Erskine May", no amendments to the motion are possible since the Act provides only for approval.
I do not propose, therefore, to select any amendments this evening, but the House will of course be free to vote against the main question and to raise in debate many of the arguments advanced in the amendments on the Order Paper.

Points of Order

Ms Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you help me with an inconsistency that I perceived in the answers today. A junior Minister decided that it was a matter for him to answer a question about Mr. Cahill and his £10 million payout for the Rover deal, yet, when we asked him yesterday about that, the Prime Minister said that it was not a matter for him. Can you enlighten me?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady is wise enough and has been in the House long enough to know that she must pursue that matter by other means.

Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given the unsatisfactory replies by the President of the Board of Trade to my question about the Post Office—he did not even appear to know anything about it—may I apply for a Thursday Adjournment debate?

Madam Speaker: That is precisely the way to proceed on these matters.

Dr. Lynne Jones: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It concerns the transfer of oral

questions accepted yesterday and asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and me. The questions were directed to the House of Commons Commission. I note from today's Order Paper that those questions, which concern the provision of child care facilities in the Palace of Westminster, have been transferred to the Chairman of the Administration Committee. Could that be reviewed?
I am aware that the Chairman of the Administration Committee is responsible for the questionnaire currently being circulated and analysed, but overall responsibility for this important matter rests with the Commission, so I hope that the matter can be reconsidered in order that the House can debate it in the Chamber.

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. The rule for questions is that they should be addressed to the hon. Member with primary responsibility for answering them. I am having inquiries made into the matter raised with me by the hon. Lady and shall be in touch with her as soon as I can.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question relates to your original statement, although it in no way seeks to question it. While it would be totally improper for any amendments to be selected, do I take it that it is still possible for some amendments to be tabled, as they provide a valuable means for people to express their opinions?

Madam Speaker: Yes, of course, it is perfectly reasonable for hon. Members to table amendments, which can provide an opportunity for expression and can be referred to during the debate.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Would you, Madam Speaker, agree that the Government and the Cabinet have collective responsibility at all times? My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked a question about the Prime Minister's statement yesterday. The tinpot Minister of State answered the question for which the Prime Minister said he was not responsible. Last week, the Prime Minister called on all his Ministers and others to sing from the same hymn sheet—but they sound like a rabble.

Madam Speaker: I hardly think that is a point of order for me. It seems to be an extension of Question Time. I am sure that all hon. Members who are interested can find other methods of pursuing that subject.

Public Inquiries (Improved Procedures)

Sir Terence Higgins: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision as to transcripts, oral evidence and other submissions to public inquiries, and for connected purposes.
Presenting this Bill today is for me rather like a maiden speech, as it is the first time that I have introduced a ten-minute Bill.
My Bill makes two specific proposals that are modest and, on balance, will save taxpayers' money. I hope that it will have the unanimous support of the House of Commons, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I shall begin by describing the Bill's background. It stems largely from my recent experience of a public inquiry into the development of the A27 in the Worthing district. Alas, nothing in the Bill, even if it proceeds with the greatest speed, will have any effect on that inquiry. My experience of that inquiry showed me that it was worth while introducing a Bill to help those who are engaged in public inquiries in future. While we pass much legislation, and Government Departments introduce many procedures for our constituents, we do not always have first-hand experience of all aspects of that legislation.
Public inquiries into road schemes could be improved in two ways. The proposal in Worthing will not be affected by the Bill. I believe that Worthing should have a bypass, but the Government propose to put the road through the built-up part of the town. Our position is unique, in that there are two possible routes for the road.
The normal procedure is for the Government to propose a route, which is the only one to be worked up in great detail. The overall effect of that is to bias proceedings heavily against objectors and in favour of the Department of Transport's scheme, which should give the House considerable cause for concern. It is important that schemes should be considered and alternatives fully examined.
The other general matter of concern is that, although we introduced the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, which did something to help those affected by road schemes, I am increasingly of the belief that the way in which some of my constituents are treated can only be described as a form of highway robbery. The Government have interpreted the Act in a restrictive way. They pay compensation under discretionary powers only to those within, in general terms, 100 m of the central line of the roads, which may be six lanes wide. That seems to leave a large number of people who live outside the limit, but who are seriously affected.
The Government have consistently taken the view that the crucial factor is whether the enjoyment of property is affected by the proposed road. Many people are unable to sell their property for a number of years, regardless of how difficult their personal circumstances may be. The way in which the matter is handled is a considerable disadvantage to constituents who take their case to a public inquiry.
There is much to be said for the French system, whereby substantially more than the market value of the house is offered, which avoids the delays and unfairness that would otherwise result.
The Bill essentially addresses two problems. The first is that, when a public inquiry begins, one is expected to present a so-called proof of evidence in writing. That is an

onerous undertaking, although I am amazed at the expertise in matters such as road programmes that emerges among constituents during such inquiries. None the less, one may have to write 80 or 100 pages of detailed analysis to present the so-called proof of evidence.
That is all very well, but the absurdity is that one is then required to read out that proof of evidence at the public inquiry, which can only be described as a field day for lawyers. [Interruption.] They are perfectly able to read the proof of evidence, but, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is suggesting, they earn a considerable amount in legal fees for simply sitting and listening to evidence being read.
In addition, a considerable number of officials from the Department of Transport attend inquiries. They could also read the proof of evidence, but instead sit and listen for day after day doing nothing.
The result is that the inquiry that I mentioned has continued for three months, and is likely to continue until Easter or beyond. Much of the time has been taken up by the absurdity of people having to read out their proof of evidence. My proposal, therefore, is that the reading out of evidence should not be necessary, or that it should be allowed only if the inspector believes that it is appropriate.
The second problem arises when constituents do not feel able to present an elaborate written proof of evidence, and instead give their evidence orally. The absurdity is that the decision about whether such evidence should be transcribed is at the discretion of the inspector.
I do not wish to comment on the case that I mentioned, but it appears that a transcript is not being provided, on grounds of cost. The scheme is likely to cost about £120 million, yet finance is not available for transcripts, which might achieve a result that is better, fairer and less biased in favour of the Department. We must correct that. My Bill, perhaps with a de minimis provision, would ensure that transcripts are provided.
The other absurdity that arises is that no transcript is provided of cross-examination—the interesting exchanges that are vital if one disputes matters at a later stage. As an objector's notes can be disputed, he is unable to present his case in a fair way, with all exchanges being recorded. That matter should be put right. It is absurd that constituents can attend an inquiry every day for three or perhaps five months, listening to the cross-examination, only to have their notes disputed.
For those reasons, I believe that the case is overwhelming. On balance, it would mean a substantial saving of public funds, and the saving of time and trouble under the first part of the Bill would more than compensate for the cost of providing a transcript.
It has been suggested that proceedings could be tape-recorded. A recording is not necessarily provided but, as the House knows, a tape-recording is not an adequate substitute for a written record. If one wishes to dispute a particular exchange, one cannot whip back and forth through a tape-recording which might run for some hours, but one can pick out and cite a passage from a manuscript immediately. Therefore, there is no reasonable argument for proceedings to be recorded.
I very much hope that the House will be kind enough to allow me to introduce the Bill. I also hope that, unlike some other ten-minute Bills, it might find its way on to the statute book.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Terence Higgins, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Alan Williams, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Gary Waller.

PUBLIC INQUIRIES (IMPROVED PROCEDURES)

Sir Terence Higgins accordingly presented a Bill to make provision as to transcripts, oral evidence and other submissions to public inquiries, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 March, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There are occasions when one regrets that the ten-minute Bill procedure does not have a fast track to fruition, and this is one of them. In the presence of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, may I suggest that some thought should be given to finding a way to dispatch ten-minute Bills through the House? I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), who has struck a chord with many of us in saying that the way in which public inquiries are carried out is a scandal. Those of us who went through the Orkney scandal believe that the procedure is outrageous.

Madam Speaker: That is a matter of opinion rather than a point of order for the Chair.

Orders of the Day — Sunday Trading Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 8 December]

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about the selection of amendments. Having heard what was said during the debates on the Maastricht treaty, I know that you cannot explain why you have selected some amendments and neglected to select others.
I have tabled an amendment which would exclude Wales from the Bill's provisions. It has no crossover with any of the other amendments that are to be considered, and I should like an assurance that there will be an opportunity to raise that point on Report, as I have been denied that opportunity now. It is an important point, not only for me but for most hon. Members with Welsh constituencies. Therefore, if I may, I ask for an assurance that the matter can be raised on Report in the House.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): I noted the strength of the hon. Gentleman's feeling from the speed with which he tabled the amendment. Nevertheless, he knows full well that I can give no assurance about the Report stage; I can say only that Madam Speaker will read Hansard and will be aware of the hon. Gentleman's plea.

Ordered,
That the order in which the remaining proceedings in Committee of the whole House on the Sunday Trading Bill are to be taken shall be Clause 2, Schedule 4, new Clauses and new Schedules.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

RIGHTS OF SHOP WORKERS AS RESPECTS SUNDAY WORKING

Ms Joan Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 15, line 46, after 'customers', insert
'and includes any work in connection with the delivery of goods for retail sale at the shop which necessarily involves attendance at or adjacent to the shop for the purpose of those deliveries'.
Many hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, wish as few workers as possible to have to go to work on a Sunday. However, under the Bill, many workers may be obliged to work on a Sunday, and the conditions that apply to them are at the heart of the debate, and are of considerable concern to my hon. Friends and to myself.
Employees are covered by many provisions in the schedule. It contains definitions both of shopworkers and of shop work, and it was our original intention to explore the definition of the term "shopworker". However, we have been advised that it is more appropriate to try to amend the definition of "shop work", and that is what the amendment is designed to do.
The amendment is not only probing but is of substance, too. I hope that, as a probing amendment, it will draw from the Minister a clear and expanded definition of what is meant by shop work and therefore how those who


undertake that work can be described. It is also an amendment of substance, because it would bring within the ambit of the schedule and the Bill workers involved in deliveries to shops that open on a Sunday.
We are most anxious to understand precisely who is covered by the provisions of the Bill. There are many workers whom a lay person might not regard as shopworkers as such. They are not necessarily serving at counters, providing goods or taking cash or cheque payments; they may be workers replenishing the shelves, or working in the yard around the shop bringing goods in from delivery vehicles. They may be the people who go out and collect those trolleys that always seem to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
We may presume that all such workers are covered by the definition on the face of the Bill, but in our debates on the specific employment protection measures, it will be essential to know which workers are specifically covered by the provisions.
Shop work is defined on the face of the Bill as
work in or about a shop in England or Wales on a day on which the shop is open for the serving of customers".
That appears to include workers in the yard at the back of the shop, doing the ancillary tasks. But we wish to know definitely whether it covers, for example, workers who may be housed in offices at the back of the part of the retail premises where goods are being sold, operating the computers dealing with the cash tills and the flow of goods out of the store.
Does the definition of shop work as
in or about a shop
cover such workers whom a lay person might not imagine were involved in retail work of any kind? Does it cover the manager? Are we clear whether it will cover all managers associated with work in or about a shop that is open on a Sunday? Because we want to know the answers to those questions, we are testing the Minister by including in the amendment a definition of shop work that would include all those whom I have described—I have not yet heard a clear explanation whether they are covered or not—and also people delivering goods to the store.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not important to establish whether the definition covers people who serve staff meals and refreshments? They may not serve the public, but many superstores such as Sainsbury's have staff cafeterias, and it is essential that the people who work in them be covered by the protection we seek.

Ms Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. He has mentioned yet another area where clarification is needed. I see that the Minister is beaming, which must mean that he will be able to say that those people are covered. We shall be delighted if he does. It is important to get such information on the record. I encourage all my hon. Friends to intervene as often as possible, so that we can have as clear and comprehensible a list as possible of workers defined as doing shop work "in or about a shop".
I shall now comment on those workers who make deliveries. It may be a somewhat controversial subject, and those who make deliveries may hold differing views on whether they wish to be included in the Sunday Trading Bill. Many of those people who will be required to work on Sunday and to make deliveries to stores which are trading on Sundays may already have to work on Sunday.
I acknowledge that some delivery workers already work on Sundays because they supply stores that open early on Monday morning. We also know that many workers who currently make deliveries, especially of fresh fruit, vegetables and milk, and who work illegally under the present arrangements which stores have instituted, will be required to work legally if the Bill becomes law. We wish to test the Minister to clarify whether such people are already included in the Bill's provisions. If not, our amendment would include those who make deliveries.
Delivery men and women are an important group of people who already often work unsociable hours. Many deliveries are made in the early hours of the morning in preparation for a day's trading, and they have a work pattern which is not conducive to the best sort of family life. As for other workers who will be required to work if the Bill becomes law, we believe there ought to be an opportunity for delivery workers to opt out of Sunday working.
We seek to make Sunday working a voluntary activity, and people should be able to choose whether to go to work or not on a Sunday when they are performing an activity where choice is of the essence. Of course we do not expect there to be a choice over the provision of emergency services or essential services which require people to drive vehicles on Sunday—that is clearly understood. However, we are discussing retail opening. It should be voluntary and would be a new provision in our society on Sundays, and therefore would affect a group of workers who could have to work in new conditions.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I welcome the attempt that my hon. Friend is making to present as broad a range as possible of the groups of workers who should be protected. Does she agree that there is no possible protection in the Bill for workers who are currently being pressured, including one group of maintenance engineering workers I know of, who have been told that, probably, they would have to work on a Sunday as all the shops would be open? Those jobs are unrelated to retailing, yet, because of the whole ethos of Sunday opening, there is pressure on those workers to work on Sundays as well, which is of major concern to many of us.

Ms Ruddock: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that the consequences of Sunday opening and of legalised Sunday trading are wide-ranging. We have debated those matters in Committee, and that debate will clearly continue. I firmly believe that, when the House opted for limited Sunday opening and partial deregulation, it was not giving the Government a free-for-all approach to Sunday trading and to the commercialisation of Sundays.
There is a sense throughout the House, especially among Opposition Members, that many workers could be adversely affected. It is our intention to extend the protection provided in the Bill to as wide a group of workers as possible.

4 pm

Mr. Ray Powell: I support the amendment tabled by those on the Labour Front Bench, which extends the employment protection contained in schedule 4 to lorry drivers and distributive workers employed to deliver goods to shops opening on a Sunday. I welcome the amendment, because it will offer protection to some people working in ancillary retail services who will be substantially affected


if Sunday trading became law: workers who will no longer be guaranteed respite from work at weekends; workers who are often separated from their families during the week and who will no longer be guaranteed free time with them at weekends; workers who will be required to work longer hours at low rates of pay. I support the amendment in recognition of the fact that employees in ancillary retail services should and must be given comprehensive protection on Sundays.
I want to draw to the attention of the House two inadequacies in the amendment—inadequacies that also permeate the Bill itself. The first is that the amendment applies only to a limited section of those employed in the distributive industry. It would offer no protection to those working in warehouses and regional distributive centres who, equally, will be required to work throughout the weekend if Sunday trading becomes prevalent.
Nor does the amendment offer protection to other employees working in ancillary services who will be affected directly by the introduction of full Sunday trading—for instance, those employed in food preparation. I am sure that we are all aware of the case of workers at Middlebrook Mushrooms who were dismissed for refusing to work longer hours at weekends in order to prevent further instances of discrimination and the harassment of workers into working unsociable hours.
The House has a responsibility to introduce comprehensive employment protection. That cannot be achieved through employment protection provisions such as those contained in schedule 4. It can be achieved only by restricting the level of trading on Sundays.
Equally, no protection is offered under schedule 4 to local government workers such as inspectors, traffic wardens and the police, all of whom will be required to have a larger presence in the community on Sunday if the Bill is passed. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) mentioned that in an intervention. It is important that all employees who are affected should be protected.
The second inadequacy to which I wish to draw attention is the fact that neither the amendment nor the Bill deals with the increased pressure that will be exerted on workers such as lorry drivers to work on Saturdays as well as Sundays. Information received from the United Road Transport Union shows that the experience of limited de facto Sunday trading is that, in order to serve shopping needs on Sundays, lorry drivers and warehouse workers have had to work on Saturdays, often every Saturday.
That pressure will increase if Sunday trading becomes widespread. Already, most lorry drivers work 60 hours a week, and are away from home from Monday or even Sunday to Friday. The only chance those workers get to see and spend time with their partners and their children is at weekends. Is it right, in a modern society, that workers should be deprived of the right to go to football matches with their children?
Already society is suffering the worst effects of the break-up of extended family networks in which parents, grandparents and children met and interacted regularly, and in which there was usually someone around who cared enough to keep the youngsters out of trouble. Nowadays, children are all too often left to fend for themselves long before they are ready to face the world alone.
While we cannot blame all the break-ups in society on Sunday trading, the preservation of a common day of recreation forms the central plank in a strong family-orientated community. Therefore, today and on Report, the House must vote to keep Sunday a special day for as many people as possible.
Yesterday, I received a letter from the general secretary of the United Road Transport Union. It is necessary to record parts of that letter. I quote:
It is not generally appreciated that the deregulation of Sunday trading will have a significant impact not only upon shop workers but, also, upon those engaged in the road transport and distribution industry".
It is right for the general secretary to send letters to Members of Parliament who are involved and interested in this Bill to ensure that his workers are protected. The letter continues:
The advent of 'just in time' regimes, coupled with deregulation, will affect everyone in the supply chain; those delivering to regional distribution centres will find themselves working on Saturday afternoons and on through the night, whilst those delivering directly to retail outlets will be required to work on Sunday. Those changes, designed to bring benefits to retailers and shoppers, will be achieved at the expense of professional drivers, and at a huge cost to the social lives of them and their families … Substantial changes in working practices, leading to even greater pressure to breach existing regulations on drivers' hours, as there is no immediate prospect of a significant increase in the number of available qualified and experienced drivers to meet increased demand.
A detrimental effect upon road safety caused by those pressures and by the absence of opportunity for rest and relaxation.
A serious deterioration in family relationships as drivers become increasingly unable to fit in with the free time of the rest of the family … A substantial cost to society in dealing with the effect upon family relationships, higher rates of divorce and juvenile offending as the influence of the breadwinner is removed from the family home for longer and longer periods.
Complete deprivation of any real choice about whether or not to work in accordance with the new demands as they become incorporated into the core of commercial activity. Concerns for the social welfare of the family and the well-being of children will, of necessity, be replaced by concerns for the security of employment and continuance of income.
David Higginbottom, the general secretary of that union, is concerned about his members. He also expressed concern about a number of other people who will not be safeguarded by this amendment. The Government do not intend to safeguard some employees.
In other letters that I have received, workers have complained bitterly—Members of Parliament have also complained bitterly about this—that no hint was given or effort made to inform hon. Members that a deregulation Bill would extend weekday shopping to 24 hours a day Monday to Saturday. Why on earth do we want a Sunday Trading Bill to extend shopping on a Sunday when we will have shopping 24 hours a day six days a week?
What employment protection will be extended to workers when we take away the Shops Act 1950, which at least limits the number of hours that shopworkers are expected to work? The ancillary workers whom I mentioned—in all probability, my hon. Friends will mention them later—do not have employment protection. No amendment has been tabled that would give them protection. What protection will they be given by this Bill? I cannot see that happening.
In addition, my hon. Friends have already received complaints, and I tell Government Members in Scotland that their constituents will have no protection. We should be looking at that matter when we talk about the protection


of workers. I will not take up any more of the Committee's time, because a number of my hon. Friends would like to express similar opinions.

Mr. David Alton: I support the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and amendment No. 63. The amendment should be seen in the context of later amendments, which deal with the protection of workers who will be required to work on Sunday.
Many hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and myself, would say that one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. This is a bad piece of legislation which cannot possibly be enforced in law. It will lead to the exploitation of employees who will be pressurised in the labour market.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is a bad Bill.

Mr. Alton: However many of the amendments are passed today—I will vote for those before the Committee because they attempt genuinely to make a bad situation better—the fact is, as the hon. Lady says, it is still a bad Bill.

Ms Angela Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, rather than trying to deal in a highly complex and convoluted way with the narrow group of retail workers who work on Sunday, we should be looking to much simpler legislation which provides full-time rights for part-time workers? Should not that legislation be available on the hour that a person takes up employment, no matter how many hours they work or how long they have served in a shop? Would not that help to solve most of the problems in this area?

Mr. Alton: I agree with the hon. Lady, but she will recall that, only yesterday, the House discussed further deregulation for the rest of the week. We are going against the rights of workers. We rejected the inclusion of the social chapter when we debated the Maastricht treaty, and the rights of workers have been eroded week in, week out, during this Parliament.
I support what the hon. Lady says, although some of the amendments ought undoubtedly to commend themselves to the Committee. For example, some seek to protect applicants at interviews for retail work from discrimination because they choose not to work on Sundays. Other amendments shift the burden of proof from the employee on to the employer in cases of unfair dismissal on Sunday-related grounds.
One reduces the notice period for opting out from Sunday work from three months to one month, and another ensures that employees are informed of their Sunday employment rights. An amendment improves the remedies available to shopworkers who are seeking redress for the violation of their Sunday rights.
Perhaps most importantly, there is an amendment to introduce statutory double-time payments for all shopworkers on Sundays, thereby extending the best existing practice relating to pay within larger stores to workers throughout the retail industry and fairly compensating employees for time sacrificed with their families and friends, as the hon. Member for Ogmore described.
All the matters which we will debate—including amendment No. 63, which extends employee protection to people in distribution who work on Sunday—are worthy, and ought to be commended to the Committee. We should

not fool ourselves into believing that the measures will protect people, because everything is based on a wish and a prayer.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) talked about the voluntary principle, which shows a trust and belief in those who will be responsible for taking on employees in the future. Past practice does not give us any grounds for that touching belief expressed by the hon. Lady. The Shops Act 1950, after all, is what we are seeking to replace, and employee protection is at its heart. That principle has been tested in the British courts and the European courts, yet its provisions at the moment are paper-thin.
Legal aid is not available for industrial tribunal applications, and costs are not awarded except in wholly exceptional cases. Applicants without legal representation have been successful in only some 10 per cent. of cases when the employer has been represented. That is the present situation, so should we be making a bad situation even worse? Undoubtedly, the Bill will do that.
The remedies which are awarded are totally inadequate. Reinstatement—the primary remedy available—is awarded in only 1 per cent. of cases which proceed to a hearing. The compensation is derisory. The median compensation awarded in 1990 and 1991 was just £1,773.
Applications to industrial tribunals are subject to delay, and no interim relief is available. In June 1992, it was reported that, in a majority of regional jurisdictions, fewer than half of all applicants received a hearing within 26 weeks of their application being registered. Throughout the process of the hearing, the burden of proof of discrimination for refusing to work on Sundays lies with the employee. That is difficult to satisfy.
Even if later amendments are accepted, it will still be difficult to enforce the law.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The burden of proof does not lie on the appellant—the employee; it lies on the employer. We shall come to that later. The later amendment is unnecessary. What the hon. Gentleman has said—I know that he has read it elsewhere—is wrong.

Mr. Alton: It is not simply that I have read it elsewhere: it is the practice on the ground. If the Minister looks at the case law that is available, he will see that any employee faced with the full weight of an employer is in a vulnerable position. We must bear it in mind that most of the retail industry is not unionised. Of the 2·2 million workers in the retail industry, probably 1·8 million are not in a union and have no real protection.
As the figures that I gave demonstrate, when workers receive a tribunal hearing following all the delays, they are not properly represented and, even if the courts find in their favour, they are not properly compensated. We shall see: what the problems of employment protection will be. The Bill is a charter for exploitation.
Britain is taking a retrograde step. Not only will we leave employees more vulnerable, but we shall destroy the one opportunity that many employees in the retail sector have to spend time with their family in their home and community. It would not be right to rehearse all those arguments again. They were heard on Second Reading and


in other sittings in Committee. The Bill damages employees who like to have time with their families, and places them in a vulnerable position.
The amendment and those which follow try to make a bad situation better. I shall recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends support them, but we do so in the recognition that, even if we passed every one, workers would still be vulnerable. Conservative Members will tramp through the Lobby to vote each amendment down like a row of skittles. I suspect that we shall be left with an unamended Bill at the end of the Committee stage. Then it will be left to Opposition Members to determine what to do on Report.
The intransigence of the Government, having—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alton: Of course I will.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman will not like the point that I am going to make. If the shopworkers had not changed their mind, the Bill would not be before us in the state it is.

Mr. Alton: I regret that as much as the hon. Lady. I wrote to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers expressing my regret that some of their members had changed their view. But in fairness to the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise)—

The Chairman: Order. We are going wide of the amendment. I urge the hon. Gentleman to come back to it.

Mr. Alton: I was about to provide some employee protection for the hon. Member for Preston, who is the president of USDAW. She has taken an entirely consistent position on the Bill throughout, so what the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) says is not entirely correct.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Oh, yes it is, about the executive of the union.

Mr. Alton: I agree with what she says about the executive of the union, but it is not true of some of its representatives in the House.
The amendment is narrow. The debate that we shall have in the next few hours will rove around the employment protection issues in their many guises. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Committee.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) said, the amendment would include the delivery of goods to a shop in the definition of shop work covered by the schedule. That definition is already wide, as she acknowledged. She asked just how wide it was. All I can say is that all the roles to which she referred as performed in or about a shop would be covered.
The definition would include cleaners, storemen, shelf-fillers and trolley supervisors. The hon. Lady particularly asked about trolley supervisors. The definition would also include clerical workers at the back or above the shop or doing work related to the shop. Staff of the shop and staff cafeterias and managers on or about the premises would also be covered.
As well as the staff who serve customers, all those people will be covered, and I believe that van drivers based at the store, who deliver goods to customers, would also be included. In fact, all those whose work is connected with and for a shop that decides to open on a Sunday will be covered.
I hope that my remarks will help the hon. Member for Deptford and her hon. Friends with the probing part of the amendment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps I spoke too soon.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The Minister referred to deliveries to a shop. We all know of the large superstore chains, which have large lorries carrying their brand name on the side. I am concerned about smaller shops which are perhaps contracted out as part of a chain of deliveries. If I understood the Minister correctly, those drivers who have to work on Sunday, delivering to six shops that are owned and managed by different people, will not be covered.

Mr. Lloyd: I may have inadvertently misled the hon. Lady, or I did not make myself clear. When I referred to van drivers, I meant those drivers based at shops who deliver to their customers, and not drivers delivering goods to shops for onward sale. If she meant the latter, they are not covered, but I shall come to that in a moment.
I think that there were other potential interventions.

Mr. Alfred Morris: It has been put to the Minister, Mr. Morris, that we are determining the conditions of employment not only for people who work in the retail trades but for many others, not least local authority workers, cleansing workers, bank employees, bus drivers and other people who work in public transport. The Minister really must address himself to what has been a theme in Opposition Members' speeches—that the issue is much wider than the Government have so far addressed.

Mr. Lloyd: I was going to come to that later, but I shall deal with it now.
The schedule covers those people who work in and about a shop; it does not cover people employed by other agencies or authorities. Some part of their work on a Sunday may have to do with a shop opening. For example, if a policeman is on duty, a tiny part of his work—perhaps an infinitesimal part—might have something to do with a shop being open, but by and large a policeman is on duty for the whole range of public order reasons.
It would therefore be absurd if the police were covered, and the same is true for health inspectors, local authority workers and traffic wardens. It is not reasonable that they should be covered, or for hon. Members to imply that, in 99 cases out of 100—or more probably 999 out of a 1,000—their work will have anything to do with the Sunday opening allowed by the Bill.
For example, if health workers and cleaners are involved, it is most likely to be in catering establishments and fast food outlets, which can already open on Sundays quite lawfully. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is not worthy of greater scrutiny as these people will be on duty not because a particular shop decides to open but


because of a wide range of responsibilities, only a tiny proportion of which have anything to do with Sunday opening.

Mr. Alfred Morris: How can the Minister possibly doubt that many people who are not employed in retail trades will now, for the first time ever, have to work on a Sunday? He says that the number will be tiny, but we are talking here about principles as well as numbers. These principles are very important to all Opposition Members.

Mr. Lloyd: Retailing is the only activity that, in large measure, may not be legitimately engaged in on a Sunday. The people who work in factories that make goods for the shops may work on Sunday. Many of them have an evening shift. When I worked in the food industry, we always had a Sunday evening shift. There will be no change in that situation. The hon. Gentleman exaggerates very heavily.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What about attendants in car parks that would not be open but for the passage of this Bill?

Mr. Lloyd: Many car parks are open on a Sunday. If a local authority were to decide to charge for Sunday use of its car parks, it would have to recruit people. In fact, local authorities do recruit people for this purpose, irrespective of Sunday trading. I see here the intervention of no novel principle.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I should like to come back to the question of delivery workers. It seems to me that there is fundamental illogicality in what the Minister has said so far, and I hope that he will remedy it.
He has said that a person employed by a shop to deliver goods to its customers will be covered. The hon. Gentleman must know that that is now a very rare service. The number of drivers so employed will be tiny—the Minister is keen on the word "tiny"—whereas the number of people delivering to shops may be very large indeed. It is quite clear that the latter would not have to be employed if the shops were not open. Can the Minister explain his reasoning? I hope that, in the rest of his speech, he will do better.

Mr. Lloyd: I had not reached the question of drivers who deliver to shops. The hon. Lady is quite right in saying that the number of delivery drivers employed by shops is very small. I have mentioned these people for the purpose of establishing even a minute piece of common ground between the hon. Member for Deptford and myself about the major part of the hon. Lady's amendment.
It would not be reasonable to extend the provision to drivers working for another company who deliver goods to a store but who do not, by any stretch of the imagination, work at or around the store. As the hon. Lady said. we should have the anomally that a driver making Monday's deliveries on a Sunday to a shop that opened on a Sunday would be included, whereas a driver making Monday's deliveries on Sunday to a shop that did not open on Sunday would not be covered.
The employers of the delivery driver would never know where they were. Even if the amendment were taken away and revised to remove some of the confusion, there would remain the fact that the relationship between employer and employee would depend not on their negotiations or decisions but on whether one or other of a string of

customer stores decided to open on Sunday. The position could vary from week to week, without the knowledge of the employer or even of the employee.
The hon. Lady mentioned the delivery of fresh goods. These are delivered not just to the supermarkets and grocery shops that will be affected by this legislation but also to restaurants and catering outlets that are currently allowed to open on Sunday.
I wonder whether the hon. Lady intends the protection under this Bill to apply if a delivery driver's journey includes one shop that chooses to open. Which will govern the relationship of the driver to his employer—the one shop opening under this Bill, the others that remain shut, or the ones that have always been allowed to open and are not affected by the legislation?

Ms Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he has just begun to touch on some of the anomalies that we are coming across because we are attempting in this complex web of legislation to give a very narrow group of workers protection, when many other people work on Sunday, and, in my view, should he guaranteed similar protection? Would it not be better to withdraw the entire Bill and return to the House with a Bill that gives thorough and complete protection to all workers, whether they work part-time or full-time, during the week or on Sundays.

Mr. Lloyd: Withdrawing the Bill would cause enormous disappointment not merely to the majority in the House who voted for this solution to the Sunday trading problem but to the retail trade and the many, many people who work on Sundays and would like their position to be completely regularised, with the protections contained in the Bill.
The hon. Lady talks of anomalies. I, too, am discussing anomalies, which inevitably arise when protections are provided. All I can say is, were we to accept this amendment, those anomalies would be greatly increased, in the ways that I have described and in others.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: May I take the Minister back to the problem of deliveries? He has conceded that a driver who delivers from a shop—most of us agree that the problem would arise in the context of small supermarkets rather than large superstores—would be covered by the definition under schedule 4. But what happens if the same driver is also engaged in collecting goods from a warehouse or elsewhere, as could easily happen in such a shop? Would not that open up the difficulty which the Government are trying to avoid?

Mr. Lloyd: I am in no difficulty whatever. It would be for the courts to determine where the borderline lay. But if the driver worked in and around a shop that opened on Sundays and was partly delivering to customers and partly collecting goods from a cash-and-carry or central warehouse, I believe that he would be covered by the protections provided in schedule 4. Ultimately, if the matter came before a court, it would be for the court to decide. I can only give my best judgment.
Of course there are anomalies. It is anomalous to protect one group of workers in this way, but the hon. Gentleman knows why we are doing it. Sunday work has always been treated differently and, compared with the Shops Act 1950,


we are fundamentally changing the rules on Sunday working. The only way to get rid of those anomalies is to protect every other worker.
If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that train drivers, doctors, nurses and policemen should all have similar protection, that might rule out the theoretical anomalies, but such huge practical difficulties would arise that the hon. Gentleman would wish that he had never embarked on that course.

Mr. Grocott: Does the Minister acknowledge the deep alarm that is felt on this side of the House when a smiling Minister speaks at the Dispatch Box, with the authority of the Government, about a schedule headed "Rights of…workers"? In so far as the schedule provides a minuscule protection, will he confirm that the Government are offering that protection with the sole objective of getting the legislation through? Is it not absolutely abhorrent to the Government's fundamental instincts, which are to provide no protection for workers whatever?

Mr. Lloyd: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on both points. First, the protection is not minuscule: it is wide, radical and sweeping. We shall return to that matter later. Secondly, as the Minister guiding the Bill, my objective is to find workable arrangements for the combination of Sunday trading and employee protection that satisfy a majority in the House. In that way, the problems with which the trade, Sunday workers, and those who wish to shop on Sundays are fed up can be sorted out in a clear and enforceable way.

Mr. David Clelland: On the point about testing these issues in court, will the Minister explain where a van driver working in the retail trade is supposed to find the money to test the issue in court?

Mr. Lloyd: I dare say that the unions would be interested in the general issues of principle. If it is a question of testing it from his own interest in a tribunal, he does not need money for that. I was going to come to that later.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) talked about how long it took to get to a tribunal, how difficult it was to be represented and how the employee seldom won. He should know that two thirds of cases are decided before they get to a formal tribunal hearing, because the employer and employee have settled; they would settle when the employee realised that perhaps he had breached the rules.
We do not know the details of every case that has been settled, but the fact that two thirds are settled beforehand suggests to me that the law works well. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the statistics for 1991—I do not have them to hand at the moment—he will find that, of those who did go to a tribunal, there was a greater success rate among those employees who had attended without formal representation, either with a friend or on their own accord, than those who had secured professional and full representation, which suggests to me that tribunals work well informally, look behind the case that is brought and are not particularly impressed by professional representation.

Mr. Hoon: Just to set the record straight, in relation to cases that are settled from industrial tribunals, they do not

particularly assist the Minister, because it is highly unlikely that a settlement would involve the continuation of that person's employment. Almost every settlement involves the payment of compensation. Therefore, in effect the Minister is saying that it does not matter that the person does not wish to work on a Sunday, that the settlement will resolve that matter and that the employer would pay a modest amount by way of compensation—the settlement figures are very modest. In those circumstances, the company would in effect avoid the problem of employing somebody who chose not to work on a Sunday.

Mr. Lloyd: I venture into a subject for which I do not have ministerial responsibility, so my familiarity with the figures and the detailed background is not great. The hon. Gentleman may correct me if I am wrong, as may the officials in the box, but I believe that, in the majority of unfair dismissals, the employee does not want to go back to that place. Only a minority of employers are uninterested in whether they lose a case or settle out of court. The fact that the rules are there and can be enforced has a salutary effect. One should not judge the effectiveness of the rights or the tribunal by cases that are settled by it. One should judge the effect that it has further down the line and on the behaviour of employers. I think that that will be true in this case.
By the way that it is worded, the amendment would have a wider effect than the hon. Member for Deptford appeared to have intended, but not wider than many of her hon. Friends would have liked. The phrase
any work in connection with the delivery of goods
could stretch, as the right hon. Gentleman wanted, to traffic wardens and police overseeing the parking regulations near the shop. One must then ask whether it would affect them if five minutes of their 10-hour shift were related to parking that had something to do with the shop. The amendments should be more clear on whether that is so. It would be ridiculous if it were. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is getting up to tell me that he had no intention of suggesting anything quite so absurd.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister does not accept that any group of workers outside the retail trade will, for the first time, have to work on Sundays as a consequence of legalising the Sunday opening of shops. If he can be convinced that there will be other groups of workers who for the first time will have to work on Sunday, will he then accept that they should have the same protection that we are seeking as retail shop workers?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is in error. If some workers are not currently working on Sundays, such work is not part of their jobs, and will not be in their contracts. If their employer wants them to work on Sundays, he cannot make them do so; he cannot break or change their contracts unilaterally. He may open negotiations, but it will then be up to both sides to agree.
This is no different from a hundred and one other changes that an employer may wish to make—introducing evening working, for instance. That is where the protection lies.

Ms Eagle: Is the Minister aware of the increasing prevalence of contracts that do not specify when work will be required—"zero hours" contracts, for instance? Many employees in the non-retail sector may be forced to work on Sundays, with no requirement for a change in their


contracts. Such contracts, which do not establish the hours that should be worked or when they should be worked, are virtually a sham.

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware that some people have no written contracts, and that some written contracts are completely inadequate to describe the nature of the job involved. If it came to a dispute, and if that dispute went to court—which would be the last place along the line—it would be for the court to determine what was properly understood between employer and employee.
It would constitute a change of contract if there had originally been no question of Sunday working, and the employer was now asking for a whole set of different arrangements—even if there was nothing in writing, or the contract required the employee to "attend the place of employment at the usual time".
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has entered a vexed area. The Bill cannot make up for the inadequacy of contracts elsewhere; the problem that we are discussing, however, relates not to the vagueness of some contracts, but to contracts that clearly require an employee to work on Sundays if Sunday working is necessary. Employees may enter into such a contract believing that they will never be asked to honour the agreement.
I believe that the provisions in schedule 4 are very wide, in that they cover all workers associated with the work of a shop on or around that shop's premises. They do not extend to delivery drivers, and I do not believe that they should. I hope that the Committee will agree.

Ms Ruddock: Replying to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), the Minister made it clear that he did not consider car park attendants to be associated with the company providing the retail premises. Some car parks, however, are organised by the retail premises. I assume—the Minister nods helpfully—that their attendants are covered by the Bill in its present form.
My hon. Friends and I fear that many workers would have to undertake new tasks if the Bill became law. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) is absolutely right: what we need, and what the Government have constantly and pitifully refused to give us, is proper protection for all workers, so that they can exercise real choice and real control over the way in which employers institute and enforce contracts.
The Minister has made a great deal of the point about anomalies. All he has done, however, is encourage us to reconsider our amendment, engage in consultation and bring it back on Report. It is clear to us that some workers' contracts, and the requirement for Sunday working, will be fundamentally rearranged as a consequence of the Bill—which would not happen in any other circumstances.
That applies particularly to an instance that the Minister has not considered: the case of workers employed by a company—Sainsbury is a good example—which has its own delivery vehicles and drivers, and delivers its own goods from its own warehouses to its own stores. Deliveries of fresh goods resulting from the introduction of Sunday opening would be a specific result of the Bill's enactment: in every other respect, those workers are working for the same employer, while performing tasks that could arise only if the Bill became law.
We shall want to press our case further; but, on this occasion, I shall not press it to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. John Hutton: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in schedule 4, page 16, line 23, after `to', insert
`section (Discrimination against prospective employees who object to Sunday working) and'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 4—

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES WHO OBJECT TO SUNDAY WORKING

'(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, it is unlawful for a person ("the discriminator") in relation to employment by him at a shop to discriminate against any person seeking employment as a shop worker ("the applicant")—

(a) in the arrangements he makes for the purpose of determining who should be offered that employment, or
(b) in the terms in which he offers the applicant that employment, or
(c) by refusing or deliberately omitting to offer the applicant that employment,
on the ground (or, if more than one, the principal ground) that the applicant objects to working on Sunday.

(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to employment as a shop worker only on a Sunday ("Sunday-only work").

(3) A complaint by the applicant that the discriminator has committed an act of discrimination against the applicant which is unlawful by virtue of subsection (1) above may be presented to an industrial tribunal.

(4) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint under subsection (3) above unless it is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of three months beginning when the act complained of was done.

(5) Where an industrial tribunal finds that a complaint presented to it under subsection (3) above is well founded the tribunal shall make such of the following as it considers just and equitable—

(a) an order declaring the rights of the complainant and the respondent in relation to the act to which the complaint relates, and
(b) an order requiring the respondent to pay to the complainant compensation not exceeding the limit for the time being imposed by section 75 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

(6) Where an advertisement is published which indicates or might reasonably be understood as indicating that the employment to which the advertisement relates is open only to a person who is willing to accept a requirement to do shop work on Sunday and the employment in question is not Sunday-only work, a person who is unwilling to accept that requirement and who seeks and is refused employment to which the advertisement relates, shall be presumed to have been refused employment for that reason.

(7) A person shall be taken to be refused employment if he seeks employment as a shop worker (other than Sunday-only work) with a person and the prospective employer—

(i) refuses or deliberately omits to entertain and. process his application or enquiry;
(ii) causes him to withdraw or cease to pursue his. application or enquiry;
(iii) refuses or deliberately omits to offer him employment;
(iv) makes him an offer of such employment, the terms of which are such as no reasonable employer who wishes to fill the post would offer and which is not accepted; or
(v) makes him an offer of such employment but withdraws it or causes him to not accept it.

(8) Where a person is offered employment on terms which include a requirement to do shop work on Sunday, such an offer shall be accompanied by a written notice of the person's rights to opt out of shop work on Sunday, under paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 below and subsection (9) below.

(9) Where a person is offered employment on terms which include a requirement to do shop work on Sunday, that person


may give to the prospective employer at any time prior to accepting employment with that person written notice that he objects to doing shop work on Sunday and if the offer is subsequently withdrawn by the prospective employer it shall be presumed to be by reason of the person's refusal to do shop work on Sunday.

(10) When a person who has given notice under subsection (8) above commences employment, the provisions of Schedule 4 below shall apply to his employment as if he were a protected shop worker.

(11) In section 136 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (appeals from industrial tribunals to Employment Appeal Tribunal) in subsection (1) after paragraph (g) there shall be inserted the words—

"(h) the Sunday Trading Act 1994.".'.

Amendment No. 41, Title, line 2, after 'workers', insert
'and applicants for employment as shop workers'.

Mr. Hutton: The amendments and new clause are designed to ensure the effective operation of the employment protection measures already contained in schedule 4. These simple and modest proposals draw heavily on existing provisions in other areas of employment law—especially those relating to sex and race discrimination, and discrimination on the ground of trade union membership. I remind the House that the legislation on trade union-related discrimination was introduced by the present Government.
Schedule 4 protects existing as well as future employees from unfair treatment based solely on their unwillingness to work on Sundays. Sunday is a special day, in both the social and the religious and ethical senses; it is right that shopworkers should enjoy special employment protection in recognition of that simple fact.
Paragraph 10 of the schedule already recognises and endorses the principle that employees should not suffer discrimination on the basis of an unwillingness to work on Sundays. We simply wish to extend that essential principle to prospective employees—job applicants. As drafted, schedule 4 will still allow employers to discriminate against employees who do not wish to work on Sundays: it implicitly tolerates the possibility that those seeking work in a shop will be discriminated against if they tell their prospective employer that they do not want to work on Sundays.
The Minister of State, Home Office has already implied that the Government consider our proposals unnecessary. Underlying his argument is the Government's view—expressed by the Secretary of State on Second Reading—that new employees can always say that they do not want to work on Sundays. But what is to stop an employer from penalising those who express such unwillingness, recruiting only those who say that they will work on Sundays? There is a fundamental contradiction in schedule 4.
It would be singularly dishonest of Ministers to advise applicants to mislead employers, and, having gained employment, to take advantage of the opportunity to opt out of Sunday working. They might be understood to be telling applicants, "Do not tell your prospective employers the truth; say that you are prepared to work on Sundays, wait to gain employment and then exercise the opt-out right conferred by the schedule." An industrial tribunal might well decide that an employer was justified in dismissing an employee on the ground that he or she was not honest when interviewed for the job. That principle of candour is enshrined in existing employment law. As the Minister of State, Department of Employment is no doubt

aware, in numerous cases tribunals have told applicants that, because they lied to their employers, they cannot benefit from unfair dismissal provisions.
It is no argument against our proposals to say that they are unnecessary, because future employers will have the opportunity to opt out. That misses the fundamental point behind the amendment, which is that the schedule extends no employment protection measures to job applicants.
Paragraph 20 of the White Paper, published in July 1993, on the subject of discrimination against job applicants, offers us some early insight into the Government's thinking on recruitment. The Government argue in that White Paper that the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposal—that there should be protection against discrimination in recruitment—is"unworkable". There is no reason why that should be so. Whether it is unworkable will depend on the quality of the amendments proposed to the schedule.
There is nothing unworkable in principle about a provision designed to give protection to job applicants. We already give them protection in a number of other areas. I have already quoted the legislation governing race and sex discrimination. Indeed, this very Government introduced the principle that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of their trade union membership when they apply for jobs. There is thus nothing unworkable about a principle of non-discrimination in job interviews and applications.
Another of the Government's arguments in the White Paper against any such proposals was that employers would be open to claims of discrimination by anyone who failed to be given a job and then said that was because he did not want to work on a Sunday. That too misses the point of the amendments, which the Government of course had not seen at the time. Nevertheless, their whole argument is flawed, overlooking as it does the fact that these are issues of proof and evidence that need to be argued before an industrial tribunal. We know, for instance, that the Government's legislation on union membership has not provoked hundreds of thousands of people to bring frivolous or vexatious litigation to industrial tribunals.
Still, we were conscious of this possibility, and we drafted the amendments accordingly to make it a matter of proof before an industrial tribunal that the reason why a job applicant was not employed was chiefly his refusal to work on Sundays.
We start from the proposition that, underlying the principle of this schedule, is the simple idea that people should be free to choose whether to work on Sundays. If they choose not to, they should be immune from any form of victimisation. Indeed, paragraph 10 of schedule 4 endorses that principle, and the schedule itself is a reflection of it.
The schedule, however, does not go far enough. How is the freedom to choose whether to work on Sundays guaranteed—sanctified? I ask that because of the omission of any provision in the Bill to protect job seekers. Effectively, there will be one law for existing and future employees and no protection for people who might want to enter the labour market as shop workers.
I have established that the amendments are not unworkable and that they will not lead to abuse. To claim the contrary is a spurious argument designed to lay a false trail.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott)—unfortunately not in his place—has drawn attention to the sardonic nature of the schedule. After 15 years of a Conservative Government whose members have systematically taken as one of their fundamental objectives the dismantling of decent employment protection laws, they now propose to recreate some of those very employment rights. The hollowness of their approach can be seen when it comes to these amendments. I therefore urge Conservative Members not to let their prejudices get in the way of common sense and fair play in respect of job protection rights for job seekers.
Given the need to recognise the special ethical considerations of Sunday working, we should pay particular attention to the situation of job seekers. It is just not acceptable to regulate for future and existing employees but to omit from the framework of law the position of job seekers.
It is worth noting that there is little logic behind the Government's objections to the amendments. I have already said that the principle underlying the schedule is that Sunday working is genuinely optional and cannot be enforced, so why will not that protection extend to job applications? What is the fundamental objection to such an extension? It certainly cannot be logical. It can only be ideological: that it is not right for the Government to intervene in this way. But I reiterate that the absence of any provision for job seekers is to be regretted.
The amendments closely follow the wording of other areas of employment law dealing with job discrimination, and are therefore not new in any sense—the idea behind them is well established. There is nothing unworkable, unsound or unsatisfactory about them. They are drafted so as to allow employers to recruit employees for Sunday-only working. We are aware that we do not want to encourage unnecessary applications to industrial tribunals. Their workload is already heavy and they are already under pressure. We do not want to add to it by creating bogus cases. We have thus recognised that if an employer wants to recruit people solely to work on Sundays, he should be free to do so—the amendments would not prohibit him from doing that.
We do say, however, that if the employer imposes a condition of Sunday working when the work itself is not exclusively related to Sunday, that constitutes an unfair industrial practice that can generate a claim before an industrial tribunal.
If the Government respond to these amendments by saying that they will result in unnecessary claims before tribunals—bogus claims motivated by a desire merely to get compensation—we say that that argument is incorrect and cannot be substantiated. Of course, such arguments can always be deployed; we simply do not accept that they are sustainable in this case.
It is clear, I hope, from the amendments that compensation under new clause 4—if it becomes part of the Bill—will be in line with existing employment protection ceilings. There may be argument about whether those are adequate, but it should be borne in mind that, under these proposals, the tribunal will have discretion as to the remedies that it awards in a successful case. We do not prescribe a manadatory award of compensation for every case brought under this part of the schedule. We merely say that the tribunal can make an order declaring

the rights of the parties, if it thinks fit, or can in addition make an award of compensation, subject to the ceiling set out in section 75 of the Employment Protection Act 1975.
If the Government argue that the amendments will impose unnecessary costs on employers, we will argue that that cannot be sustained. As I have said, we borrow the concept of compensation from unfair dismissal legislation in Government proposals. We have applied that concept to job seekers who are discriminated against solely because they decline to work on Sundays.
We are also conscious of the fact that there is always a problem with the burden of proof before industrial tribunals. The Government's White Paper clearly stated their concern that there will be frivolous applications—that people will allege that they were not offered employment because they would not work on Sundays, and that that will generate new and troublesome litigation. We are conscious of that problem and have tried to deal with it in the amendments.
New clause 4 involves the burden of proof as it relates to job advertisements. The new clause will assist the applicant who alleges that he or she is being discriminated against on the basis of Sunday working. It is always difficult to assess the burden of proof in discrimination cases. It would be misleading for Ministers to say that the law on discrimination itself is an invitation for people to bring claims to industrial tribunals. We are aware of the problems surrounding the burden of proof and have tried to deal with them fairly in the amendments.
5 pm
A careful perusal of the amendments and new clause 4 should lead all hon. Members to the same conclusion—that they are necessary to fill a gap in schedule 4. If it is acceptable to protect existing and future employees, why is it not acceptable to protect job seekers or job applicants? In principle, there should be no distinction between the protection afforded those three groups. If the two groups—future and existing employees—are to be protected, the third group—job seekers—should also have access to that protection.
The amendments are sensible and well considered. They are designed, rightly, to improve the job prospects of people in the labour market for retail work. They are designed to recognise the special ethical and social considerations that properly apply to Sunday working. Opposition Members do not regard it as acceptable that people seeking work in shops should be discriminated against if they do not choose to work on Sunday. That is an illogical, unacceptable and immoral proposal, which the House should not be prepared to accept.
I hope that common sense and fairness will prevail in the debate. I hope that Conservative Members, particularly Ministers, will tell their supporters that the amendments make sense, fill a gap in the schedule and should be supported. I hope that Ministers will give the amendments sensible and reasoned consideration. I hope that they will not fall back on the empty arguments and windy rhetoric of the White Paper, which tried to argue that debate on employment protection in schedule 4 was unworthy. Job applicants are clearly deserving of employment protection. We recognise that principle in other sectors, and there is no logical reason why it should not apply to job applicants.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as Conservative Members, to show fairness and support the amendments.

Mr. Alton: I strongly support the case of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who advanced a logical and compelling argument. I hope that the Minister will save us time by saying that he accepts the logic of the argument—I can see that the Minister is shaking his head. In doing so, he gives the game away. If the Government are not prepared to extend something as reasonable as the provision to prospective job hunters, what is the legislation about? It must involve the same subject as yesterday's debate—total deregulation of the market and the removal of the last vestige of protection from employees. It should be seen in that context.
A report by Kevin Brown appeared in the Financial Times on 7 December 1993. It stated:
A former employee of a London menswear chain claimed yesterday that he had been forced to accept a contract requiring him to work on Sundays against his will.
The claim follows earlier allegations that leading retailers such as J. Sainsbury have put pressure on employees to work on Sundays.
The report continued
Mr. Matthew Phillips, a former supervisor for the Mister Byrite chain, said he had been given an hour to sign a contract making Sunday a normal working day.
The revised contract stipulates that Sunday is the first day of the working week, and that employees will be paid at the company's normal rates.
Mr. Phillips, who left the company voluntarily in April, said he signed the contract because he was told he would be made redundant if he refused.
The details of Mr. Phillips' contract were confirmed by Mister Byrite, which says that 350 other employees accepted the changes without complaints.
Presumably, those employees were fearful of losing their jobs if they did not accept the changes.
The report continued
Mr. Mick O'Connor, general manager, said the contracts were issued to put all employees on similar terms when it became 'obvious' that the group would have to trade on Sundays to protect its market share.
Mr. O'Connor denied that employees had been forced to sign the contract. He said, however, that Mr. Phillips was told that he should reconsider his future in retailing if he refused to sign.
That case is borne out by a letter that I received this week from a Mr. Turner of Harbledown road, Sanderstead in Surrey. He wrote
My son, who is aged 17 and still at school, has a part time job at Allders department store in Croydon. They have asked him on several occasions to work on a Sunday, but he has refused. However, they are now preparing for Sunday trading and have asked him to sign a new contract under which he agrees to work on Sunday if asked".
He has been told that
if he refuses they have the right to dismiss him.
We know what the law is supposed to do, and we know that various voluntary arrangements are supposed to apply to existing employees. If they do not stand for existing employees, what chance have prospective applicants—the group that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness is trying to protect? The incorporation of the new clause is vital if Sunday working is to remain a voluntary activity. There is no point in granting protection from discrimination to employees once they are in work, as the Government have already done, if similiar protection is not also granted to prospective employees. The new clause would grant that necessary protection.
The Government have made concessions on employment protection for future retail employees that mean that people starting new jobs in the retail sector will have the

right not to work on Sundays if they choose not to do so. Those concessions will be rendered worthless unless the new clause wins the support of the Committee today.
Hon. Members have made it perfectly clear that, whether or not they favour widespread Sunday trading, they want any work done on Sundays to be undertaken by willing volunteers who have freely chosen to give up a common day off with their families and friends. Without the sort of protection that the hon. Gentleman is trying to extend, it will be impossible to meet that objective.
Hon. Members are surely agreed that freedom to choose a common day off should be enduring. The Committee accepts the principle of providing some protection to the 2·2 million retail workers currently employed in the retail sector. We must not forget that the retail sector has an extremely high turnover of staff. Each and every year between 20 and 40 per cent. of retail employees change jobs. Given that fact, there is no point in protecting future employees from discrimination once they have started work if they can be discriminated against while they are applying for jobs. Any job applicant expressing a desire not to work on Sundays will be rejected out of hand, as the letter from which I have quoted shows.
With so many people on the dole at present, employers who open on Sundays will undoubtedly choose the most compliant and submissive applicants. Unless the new clause wins the support of the Committee, everyone who applies for a retail job in future, and who does not want to work on Sundays, will not stand a chance of obtaining work. Job applicants will be forced to renounce their right to a common day off with their families. They will be sorely tempted to lie about their intention not to work on Sundays, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said.
Is that the sort of society that we want to create? Do we want people to tell a pack of lies in order to obtain a job because they know that that is the only way that they can gain access to the employment market? If they lie they will have a far better chance of obtaining a job, and once they have the job they can give notice of their intention not to work on Sundays and acquire the protected-employee status which the Government say will be available under the legislation. If it is logical to provide that protection once someone is employed, why is it not logical to do so in advance?
There is a serious danger that the Bill, as it stands, could become a charter for liars, so that people resort to dishonesty merely to secure a job. The new clause will do away with that danger and ensure that Sunday working remains voluntary—the principle that all hon. Members are supposed to accept.
Unless people who change their jobs or who apply for a job for the first time are given statutory protection against discrimination, within a few years only a tiny fraction of retail workers will still be able to enjoy a common day off with family and friends, without fear of discrimination or dismissal. The Government are aware of that. Many Conservative Members who supported the total deregulation option have a secret agenda, which they revealed in yesterday's debates and which they are determined to force through regardless of any paper-thin assurances that are incorporated in the Bill.
That is a dreadful prospect for Britain's shopworkers, families and communities. New clause 4 would prevent that dreadful prospect from becoming reality and I hope that it will commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The amendment is important. I believe strongly that it particularly affects women who wish to return to work after having a family. On one matter, however, I take issue with the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). I do not believe that people who decline on principle to work on Sundays would succumb to the temptation to lie. We would be catching, so to speak, decent people twice over because they would not lie to preserve their jobs. All those who value family life and the principle of Sunday should vote for the amendment and I shall most emphatically do so.

Ms Eagle: After spending many hours on the Bill in Committee, I feel somewhat relieved that we have finally reached the meat of the Bill. Some hon. Members who voted for partial deregulation were uncertain about what the final terms of the Bill would be and how we would vote on Third Reading. Until we finish debating schedule 4, which should have been considered at the beginning of the process, some of us will still not know how to vote on the Bill as a whole.
Amendment No. 64 is the first in a series of important amendments that will allow us to decide whether the provisions of schedule 4 offer adequate and meaningful protection for those who may be required to work on Sunday.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said that two considerations guide them in the matter. The first, on which the House has agreed, is that all Sunday working should remain voluntary. The amendments deal with that principle. The second, which we shall debate later, is that there should be a proper reward for Sunday working.
In considering the amendments, we should decide whether retail workers who may be required to work on Sunday have entirely voluntary contracts. I shall not be as uncharitable to Ministers as some of my hon. Friends about the worker protection provisions of schedule 4. I served on the Committee that considered the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill last year and fought a constant battle to avoid the stripping down of worker protection. I therefore find the worker protection provisions in schedule 4 a revelation. They show how much pressure the Sunday shopping lobby has put on the Government to provide reasonable protection and to enable shops to open on Sundays.
I do not object to shops opening on Sundays, but the crux of the decision is that Sunday working should be voluntary and that proper employment protection should be available to those who will be asked to work on Sunday.
One difficulty is that, after 15 years of union-bashing legislation, which has weakened employee rights and protection, we are attempting to add employment protection measures to employment legislation that offers workers weak protection. Another difficulty is that we are having to fit employment protection measures into a complex system of employment law, to which many of my hon. Friends have referred. Workers face difficulty in claiming their rights. That is the background to the amendments.
The Bill offers existing and future employees two statutory protection measures on voluntary working. Those measures pose some difficulties and I shall comment on how effective they are when we discuss schedule 4. New clause 4 deals with a new category of workers: job seekers

and potential workers. It aims to provide them with the same protections as the Bill provides existing workers and those who will work on Sunday.
5.15 Pm
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) said, the Bill offers no protection against discrimination for job seekers. That gaping hole must be plugged if the legislation is to have any credibility and to offer reasonable protection for retail workers.
I agreed with the comments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who reminded us of the high turnover of staff in the retail sector, which makes useless the protection for existing workers. The protection offered by schedule 4 will apply only to a certain percentage of the retail work force. Until we plug the gap, people who leave retail jobs or start new ones will have no effective protection. That will be the position for a large percentage of workers in the retail sector.
We should not pretend that we have reasonable protection for workers and are offering retail workers a choice if they will not be employed because they are riot prepared to work on Sundays. Although we have had concessions from the Government, they will not be worth much if the gap is not plugged. Turnover in the retail industry is an important factor.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness said, the way in which current anti-discrimination law works provides a reasonable model for ensuring that job seekers have the protection that we are seeking to extend to existing and future shop workers.
Another group of workers is covered neither by the amendments nor the Bill. I should be interested in the Minister's interpretation of the Bill because I may be wrong about that. The new protections and statutory rights against dismissal and detriment appear to protect existing and future shop workers who opt out, but contract workers, who might be described as freelance, casual workers and who might be on one of the new zero-hour contracts to which I referred earlier, and those workers whose service is interrupted for reasons other than maternity leave, will not be protected. I may be misunderstanding the Bill and I should be more than happy to be corrected on the matter, but many workers who may be described as self-employed are increasingly casual, freelance workers. As a result of deregulation in the labour market, they form an increasingly large percentage of that market and I am not certain that they are covered by the Bill. I should appreciate clarification of that matter.
If we are to make the Bill stick and if we are to be able to say that we have reached a genuinely good compromise, one that can be supported by shop workers and by Labour Members who are desperately worried about the pressure that might be brought to bear on a deregulated and often un-unionised work force—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady keeps referring to Labour Members, but she should know that appealing to her colleagues is not enough—she needs to attract some Conservative Members to her side.

Ms Eagle: It is for Conservative Members to decide what they think is right when they come to vote. I was saying that Labour Members are especially worried about appropriate and proper employment protection. One has only to consider the Government's record to realise that the Conservatives have not always covered themselves in


glory in this respect. The hon. Lady will doubtless make up her own mind, but I hope to see her with us in the Lobby tonight.
We shall make the Bill stick and I shall vote for it on Third Reading only if we can tell our constituents that the protections granted under schedule 4 are genuine, enforceable and easily usable by a work force who are often vulnerable, un-unionised and perhaps working in small companies where they are unsupported by colleagues. They may be unsure of their rights and unable to go to experts for help. We must be able to prove to ourselves and our constituents that the protections in schedule 4 are workable. I shall not vote for the Bill on Third Reading unless I am satisfied that that is the case.
One way of proving that the protections are workable would be to plug the hole that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness has sought to plug with the excellent amendment. I hope, too, that we shall receive assurances on a range of other issues that I should not even dream of mentioning at this stage because I know that you would leap up and rule me out of order instantly, Mr. Morris.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance about contract workers and casualised workers and that the Committee will realise the crucial nature of the amendment and support it so that we can extend to job seekers and the hundreds of thousands of people who regularly change jobs in the retail sector the choice of whether to work on Sundays.

Mr. John Marshall: I shall be brief, but I wish to reiterate the concern of all hon. Members that people should not be forced to work on Sundays against their conscience.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). As he knows, I sympathise with him on some issues, but that is not the case today. He said that if someone went to a job interview and said that he did not want to work on a Sunday for reasons of conscience he would not be employed. That is absolute twaddle. He should know by now that one of the greatest problems in the retail trade is the fact that a certain amount of wastage is caused by employees helping themselves to some of the stock at the end of the day.
If someone told a retailer that he was a dedicated Christian and therefore did not want to work on a Sunday but promised to give value for money on the other days, I happen to believe that the retailer would appoint him because he would know that he was honest and a man of integrity. I should have thought—[Laughter.] I am surprised that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) does not believe that people want to employ men of integrity and honour. I should have thought that that was exactly—

Ms Jackson: Is the hon. Gentleman asking the Committee to accept the bizarre suggestion that integrity can be found only among those who practise the Christian religion? How can he say that in view of the many other religions practised in this country?

Mr. Marshall: I am surprised to hear the hon. Lady's comment because, as she knows, I have said many times that the precepts of the Torah are equally as good as those of the New Testament. If someone says he is a Christian

and can be trusted, his word is worth something, but people of other religions can be trusted equally. It is wrong to assume that people with a particular religious faith about which they feel strongly do not on the whole tend to be honest and honourable employees whom anyone would be happy to employ.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman accused me of speaking twaddle. I have heard some strange things in the House over the years, but what he said leaves me virtually speechless—but not entirely speechless, he will be glad to learn. Is he seriously suggesting—if he is, it is an extraordinary slur—that only a certain group of shop owners are honest and likely to be trustworthy? I was talking about applying for a job. If a candidate for a job told an employer that he was not prepared to work on Sundays, does the hon. Gentleman think that he would get the job, bearing in mind the current state of the job market in which many people are chasing every position?

Mr. Marshall: I did not say that all shopworkers were dishonest. I said that one of the retail industry's problems was that some shopworkers were dishonest and that, as a result, a certain amount of produce disappeared through the back door at the end of the day without being paid for.

Ms Jackson: Surely the Bill has been introduced because of the basic dishonesty—to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase—of the people who manage the retail industry. It is the management of the large shops who break the law.

The Chairman: Order. The amendment is not about slippage.

Mr. Marshall: There may be a certain amount of shrinkage.
Let us consider the Sunday employment pattern in the retail industry. The vast majority of those who now work on Sundays do so voluntarily. Some shops have so many volunteers that they have to draw up a roster.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I know that he is having a rough ride. I do not ask him to give way merely to interpret the flow of his thoughts. He seems to be suggesting that employers will find it possible to staff their shops with volunteers on Sundays and will therefore be willing to employ someone who refuses to work on a Sunday. I know of a director of a shop that sells china and glassware in my constituency. He happens to be a committed Christian and, although he broadly supports the Keep Sunday Special stance, he said:
We are wary of legal protection for shopworkers who choose not to work on Sundays since, if we are forced to open on Sundays through continuing to lose so much business, we will need to staff our shop with people with specialist knowledge and experience.
That shop, which sells specialised goods, cannot be alone. Many shops will need to call on their staff if they are forced to open on Sundays because of competition. Surely the hon. Gentleman is wrong to argue that someone who says at an interview that he or she refuses to work on Sundays will not be jeopardising his or her chances of employment.

Mr. Marshall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that remarkably concise intervention. If one considers the shops that open on Sundays at the moment—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Cheats.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene? If so—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was defining those who open on Sundays as cheats.

Mr. Marshall: Perhaps the small shops that the hon. Lady supports, which have been opening for a long time, have been cheating and other shops have decided to emulate their behaviour.
We were talking about employee protection. We must recognise the fact that many people volunteer and many retailers currently have a queue of people waiting to work on Sundays, and are only too anxious to do so.

Mr. Hutton: The whole point of law making is to allow for unforeseen circumstances. There may well be, as the hon. Gentleman says, a surplus of workers prepared to work on Sunday now. But can he confidently say that that will always be true? In the House we should be trying to make legislation that will stand the test of time. That is the reason for the new clause and the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have grasped it.

Mr. Marshall: One has to look at current trends and trends over recent years to decide whether there is likely to be a sudden reduction in the number of people who want to work on a Sunday. If that happened, because of a sudden change in the attitude to Sunday working and shopping—

Ms Eagle: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to argue that so long as there is a ready supply of people who want to work on Sundays they should not have any protection at work?

Mr. Marshall: I did not say that. I have given way many times and that is the last interruption that I, and others, will put up with. The flow of my speech is becoming even more disjointed than it was at the beginning.
We must accept the fact that there are many volunteers. When the people who run the retail trade make appointments they look for individuals of integrity. If someone said that he would not work on Sundays, most employers would say, "That guy"—or that lady—"is a person of integrity and that is the sort of person whom I want to employ."

Mrs. Wise: As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) said, the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) had a rough ride. I now want to comment on what he said from a different point of view. If he thinks that in general employers would not discriminate against a job seeker because they would regard a person with scruples as an honest person of integrity and probity, why does he resist the amendment?
The hon. Gentleman cannot say that nobody would be discriminated against. He may say that it would not happen to the majority, but what about the minority? He may suggest that if only a few people are involved the problem does not matter—but we do not frame our other laws in that way. A very small minority of people are murdered, but we still have laws against murder, to protect people. We must press the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for a better reason for resisting the amendment. We are not trying to

forecast how often the amendment would take effect; we are simply saying that it should be there to be used when needed.
I shall stress briefly two other aspects of the argument. First, the high turnover in the retail trade means that over a relatively short period most of the people affected will be job seekers. There has always been an enormously rapid turnover in retailing, but that is now exacerbated by the increasing practice by some large employers of giving people only temporary contracts. Now there is a turnover of staff even when the staff are reluctant for that to happen. The fact that increasing numbers of people are being forced to seek jobs makes the amendment all the more important.
The other important aspect is the dilemma in which people will be placed without the protection in the new clause—a dilemma that it is impossible for applicants to resolve satisfactorily. As the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said, there will be those who will not stoop to lying. I think that a substantial number of people will fall into that group, because they will resent being put into the position of having to lie, and will resist the pressure. Nevertheless, they will feel the pressure and people who have failed to get a job will wonder whether they did the really moral and ethical thing if their family suffers as a result. The job may have been desperately needed.
No applicant for work should be put in the position of either having to lie or being unreasonably refused a job. The Committee should take that matter extremely seriously. I agree with the hon. Member for Lancaster that, despite the risk of losing—or rather, not gaining—the job, many people will resist the pressure to lie. But what about those who do not, those who lie to the employer because they feel that in their circumstances the pressure is irresistible? Such a person may get the job, but will not feel happy about the way in which it had to be secured.
If, later, such a person seeks to opt out of Sunday working, he or she may be dismissed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) explained, that person may have thrown away the possibility of protection, because a tribunal may deem that, by lying, the employee had behaved in a way that justified the employer's lack of confidence in him or her. That is an outrageous gap to leave in the law, so I hope that the Minister will not resist the amendment. I consider it to be crucial if there is to be anything like fair play for people who work, or seek work, in retailing.

Mr. Paul Boateng: The Opposition are entitled to a wry smile when the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) berates us for failing to beguile other Conservative Members into voting for the new clause.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng: If I may first finish what I was saying, I shall happily give way.
We are entitled to a wry smile when the hon. Lady makes that allegation against us, because we are entitled to look to her to use her handbag effectively to ensure that other Conservative Members go through the Lobby with her in support of the new clause. She could begin with her handbag on the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)—a man who needs handbagging if any man ever did.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was objecting to the way in which the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) put her argument. If I may say so again, if the shopworkers had not ratted on us at the previous vote we should not have been in this position—and they were on the Opposition side.

Mr. Boateng: We can be forgiven for pulling the hon. Lady's leg a little, because tonight we shall find ourselves in the unusual position of being in the Lobby together. For a moment—the briefest of moments—that makes one rethink one's position, but having done so one continues to be determined to support the amendment, because it goes to the heart of the Bill.
The response of the hon. Member for Hendon, South, the champion of the deregulators, was interesting. He believes that there should be no regulation whatever of the retail or any other trade and last night he went through the Lobby with enthusiasm to vote for deregulating trading on every other day of the week. When the amendment smokes such people out, the real agenda of all too many proponents of the Bill becomes clear. It is to enable those who control the retail trade to be able to pick and choose who they employ.
It has been amazing to watch the Minister throughout the debate and to read what he and his officials have had to say over many months in relation to the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness. It is intriguing that the Government, so wedded to the market, can be so blind to its reality. The reality of the labour market is that people are desperate for work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) pointed out, the reality of the labour market in the retail sector especially is that job applicants are many and there is a constant turnover of staff. At any one time, there is a great pool of applicants looking for work in that sector. Unless we pass the amendment and give those people some protection at least, everything else that we do will count for nothing.
In any event, employment protection in the Bill is fraught with difficulties and hazards. Anyone seeking to bring any case before an industrial tribunal for whatever reason suffers a number of hurdles which they must overcome—not least the hurdles of representation, of having to pay for the tribunal in the absence of legal aid and of the burden of proof stacked against the applicant. To deny a whole sector of people who are applying for jobs and who are desperate for protection is a shame and undermines the whole basis of what our deliberations should be concerned with—enshrining and protecting the voluntary element.
What prevents an employer from asking the following question among a number of others on an application form:
Have you a conscientious objection to working on Sunday?
Under the present Bill, as unamended, there is nothing to stop an employer asking that. If a person answers that question in the affirmative, do those who support the Bill as unamended believe that that person would be employed? It beggars belief.
In response to the explanation by the hon. Member for Hendon, South of his opposition to the amendment, one has to say "get real". Out there, the reality is that there is no way in a million years that one would get the job if one answered affirmatively. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that those persons who discriminate against an applicant because that applicant has answered in the

affirmative are brought to book. We must ensure that there is a genuine remedy if the people who have determined their right—it should be a right not to work on Sunday—are discriminated against. If they are discriminated against, those responsible for the discrimination must be made to pay.
If we cannot accept the amendment, all the fine words, pious utterances, hopes and aspirations that we shall hear from Conservative Members will count for nothing.

Mr. Bayley: The Bill was given a Second Reading on the clear understanding that no shopworker would face discrimination if he or she refused to work on a Sunday. That anti-discrimination commitment was not what the Government wanted. They wanted protection for existing shop workers, but no protection for future shop workers. The Government's consultation document in July said:
The Keep Sunday Special Campaign, the Shopping Hours Reform Council and the Retailers for Shops Act Reform have each made their own separate proposals about the new employment rights which they believe should accompany reform of Sunday trading. All have proposed that both existing and future workers in the retail sector should be protected against victimisation for refusing to work on Sundays. The Government does not believe this is the right approach.
That was the Government's view last summer. They hoped that shopworkers' rights to decline to work on Sundays would wither on the vine as a result of the turnover of jobs. For tactical reasons, the Government sought to make a commitment to people who already worked in shops, but hoped that that commitment would soon disappear.
Of course, I acknowledge that the Government have been forced, because of the views expressed in the House and because of the desire expressed by their own Back Benchers, to provide more protection. However, the Government did not want to extend protection to future employees. They did not have their heart in it, but they felt obliged to provide it to enable the passage of partial deregulation through the House.
The point raised by the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) is crucial. If we do not protect job applicants from discrimination if they do not want to work on Sunday, the protection of shopworkers who have a conscientious objection to working on a Sunday will not be worth the paper on which it is printed. Any person with a conscientious objection to working on Sunday will simply not be employed.
The extension of protection which the Government have offered and which they have used to convince hon. Members—largely Conservative Members—to give the Bill a Second Reading and a fair wind through Parliament will not provide the protection expected. More protection needs to be given—to job applicants, which the amendment seeks to do.
The case put forward by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) was incredible. He asserted that if an employee told an employer that he or she was not prepared to work on Sunday in the full knowledge that making that statement would put him or her at some disadvantage, he would be employed regardless because the consideration of whether the employer would have flexibility to employ him on a Sunday would pale into insignificance beside the fact that the individual had answered the question honestly. One could apply the same argument to an employer asking


whether somebody had the technical qualifications, or GCSEs or A-levels or the degree for the job. If an employee said that he would like a job as a doctor but did not have the qualifications, would the employer employ him or her on the strength of their honesty? Of course not. That applies to other jobs too. If a shop employer sought somebody who was numerate to count the money in the till and required the employee to have a GCSE in mathematics and the employee said that he did not have that qualification, would the employer consider that it did not matter because, although that person was not the ideal employee, he was honest and he would give him the benefit of the doubt? Of course not.
The hon. Member for Hendon, South suggested that there would never be cases in which people would decline to work on Sunday and, as a result of declining, would be refused a job in retailing. I have received numerous letters from people in my constituency suggesting that that is quite simply not the case. I shall give one example. Rev. Ian Souter of Acomb Methodist church told me:
I heard of two cases where people applying for jobs in retail outlets in the York area were asked at interview whether they were willing to work on Sundays and when both refused they did not get the job.
The normal expectation of people who honestly tell an employer that they have other things that they would like to do on Sunday will be that they will not get the job.
Conservative Members have said that an amendment that would give protection to potential employees is unworkable. But the people who will have to make it work are the shop owners and the shop owners do not think that it is unworkable. The Government's consultation document states that Keep Sunday Special, the Shopping Hours Reform Council, which represents big multiple chain stores such as Woolworth, Tesco, Sainsbury, B and Q and Comet, and Retailers for Shops Act Reform, which represents the clothes shops, Marks and Spencer and so on, all argued for protection for existing and future employees. Paragraph 20 of the consultation document says:
The Shopping Hours Reform Council have suggested that people who choose not to do retail work on Sundays should not be discriminated against in recruitment.
Even the people who want deregulation—the Shopping Hours Reform Council—say that they can work such provision. As they are the people who would have to work it, there is no reason whatever why the Government cannot give them the opportunity of making it work. It will not be an obligation on them: if they feel that it is workable. they will make it work. I hope that the Government will give the shop owners the opportunity to let that happen.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The amendment and the new clause would prevent a retailer who is seeking to fill a job that involves some Sunday work from ruling out an otherwise qualified applicant simply on the ground that that applicant objected to working on Sunday.
I strongly sympathise with a number of the amendments on the amendment paper and I can see that there is something to be said for most of the amendments that we shall be discussing today—even where I disagree with them. I hope that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who spoke with great clarity and had obviously put a considerable amount of thought into the proposal, will not take it amiss if I say that the present amendment and new clause fall into neither category.
The hon. Members who have spoken and I have a very different perception of the problem that the proposals seek

to tackle. We differ both over whether it is a problem and over what might reasonably be done about it. It seems to me unreasonable and impracticable to oblige an employer to recruit someone knowing that he is not willing to do the job or part of the job. It is the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) who has to get real here: it is quite reasonable for an employer to recruit people who want to do the whole job.
The amendment and new clause would require the retailer to ignore the needs of his business, and that is not an obligation that the law should place on an employer. It would mean that an employer would have to choose between his duty to his business—if that involved Sunday working and he wished to employ people who would work on a Sunday—and trying to obey the letter of the law.
Not all retail shops will open on a Sunday and shops that do not will not be particularly interested in whether an applicant wants to work on a Sunday—indeed, they may have to disappoint a prospective shop worker by saying that there is no opportunity for Sunday work, in which case the applicant will either have to choose to do the job without Sunday work or go elsewhere. Moreover, sorne retailers will open on a Sunday but will not want their staff to work on Sunday: they may want to strike a different balance, or they may already have enough people who are willing to work on Sunday. Where an employer needs to staff his shop for a Sunday, however, it seems to me wholly unreasonable and wholly impracticable to ask him to pass over an applicant who will work on Sunday in order to take one who will not.

Mr. Hutton: The Minister has not understood the impact of the amendment, whose purpose is not to oblige an employer to take someone on but to prevent an employer from using an objection to Sunday working as a reason for not taking someone on. An opt-out from Sunday working is available in respect of existing and prospective employees, but if the Minister does not accept the amendment he will be driving a coach and horses through it because the employer will in effect be able to make Sunday working mandatory in respect of all new and further recruitment. Is not that the reality?

Mr. Lloyd: That is one reason why I am somewhat sceptical about the protections in the schedule—although I have never been unsympathetic to the idea. The opt-outs exist for honest workers who have been employed by a shopkeeper expecting not to work on Sunday—if there is no reason why they should be obliged to do so—and for those making a career in shop work whose circumstances at one point in their life make Sunday working perfectly acceptable to them but who subsequently need to change their working pattern because of home circumstances, circumstances of conscience, circumstances of obligation to other relations or the arrival of children. That is what the protections are intended to achieve. They are not intended to convey to retailers the message that they may open on a Sunday but that they may not open their eyes to the question whether the applicant in front of them is interested in working on Sunday or not.
What the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness asks for is absurd. I understand why he asks for it, however, because what is behind the amendment and his concern is that, if more shops open on Sunday than do at present, more retailers will want to ensure that they can staff their shops on Sunday, so there will be a tendency to look for


more recruits who will be willing to work on a Sunday. The hon Gentleman and I do not Know how far that tendency will go because none of us can tell how the retail trade will evolve. I am quite certain that all retailers will not want all their employees to be ready to work on Sunday. As I said, I think that some applicants will be disappointed that there will be no Sunday work.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's apprenhension, which is that the retail trade will become a little more like the catering trade, the police, the transport industry, journalism and television—all those other occupations where some Sunday work has to be carried on if those services are to be provided. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can honestly write such protections into the law because they would place quite unreasonable obligations on employers. Indeed, from the way in which he described the amendment in his intervention, I am not even sure whether he fully supports its meaning. I will not provoke the hon. Gentleman into intervening again. I suspect that we will not reach a joint view of the problem—if it is a problem—or of the solution to it.
The parallels that the hon. Gentleman and others draw with the law outlawing race and sex discrimination are quite spurious. Those laws prevent an employer from rejecting on irrelevant grounds of sex or ethnicity an applicant who can and would do a job perfectly well. The amendment would require an employer to take on an employee who manifestly could not or would not do an essential part of the job. That is why I must ask my hon. Friends to reject it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 274, Noes 302.

Division No. 113]
[6.00pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Caborn, Richard


Ainger, Nick
Callaghan, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Allen, Graham
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Alton, David
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cann, Jamie


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Armstrong, Hilary
Clapham, Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Austin-Walker, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barnes, Harry
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Battle, John
Coffey, Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Connarty, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bell, Stuart
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbett, Robin


Bennett, Andrew F.
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benton, Joe
Corston, Ms Jean


Bermingham, Gerald
Cousins, Jim


Berry, Dr. Roger
Cox, Tom


Betts, Clive
Cryer, Bob


Blair, Tony
Cummings, John


Blunkett, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boateng, Paul
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Boyes, Roland
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Dalyell, Tarn


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Darling, Alistair


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davidson, Ian


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Burden, Richard
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Byers, Stephen
Denham, John





Dewar, Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Dixon, Don
Leighton, Ron


Dobson, Frank
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Lewis, Terry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Litherland, Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Livingstone, Ken


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eastham, Ken
Loyden, Eddie


Enright, Derek
McAllion, John


Etherington, Bill
McAvoy, Thomas


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McCartney, Ian


Fatchett, Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Faulds, Andrew
McFall, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McKelvey, William


Fisher, Mark
Mackinlay, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
McLeish, Henry


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Maclennan, Robert


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Foster, Don (Bath)
McNamara, Kevin


Foulkes, George
McWilliam, John


Fraser, John
Madden, Max


Fyfe, Maria
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Galloway, George
Mahon, Alice


Gapes, Mike
Mandelson, Peter


Garrett, John
Marek, Dr John


George, Bruce
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Martlew, Eric


Godsiff, Roger
Maxton, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meacher, Michael


Gordon, Mildred
Meale, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Michael, Alun


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Milburn, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Andrew


Gunnell, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hain, Peter
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hall, Mike
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hanson, David
Morgan, Rhodri


Hardy, Peter
Morley, Elliot


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Harvey, Nick
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Henderson, Doug
Mowlam, Marjorie


Heppell, John
Mudie, George


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mullin, Chris


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Paul


Hoey, Kate
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Hara, Edward


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Olner, William


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Neill, Martin


Hoyle, Doug
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pickthall, Colin


Hutton, John
Pike, Peter L.


Ingram, Adam
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Prescott, John


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Raynsford, Nick


Jowell, Tessa
Redmond, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Reid, Dr John


Keen, Alan
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rogers, Allan


Khabra, Piara S.
Rooker, Jeff


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rooney, Terry


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)






Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rowlands, Ted
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ruddock, Joan
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Sedgemore, Brian
Tipping, Paddy


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Dennis


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tyler, Paul


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Short, Clare
Wallace, James


Simpson, Alan
Walley, Joan


Skinner, Dennis
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Watson, Mike


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Audrey


Spellar, John
Wray, Jimmy


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wright, Dr Tony


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Steinberg, Gerry



Stevenson, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stott, Roger
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Eric Illsley.


Straw, Jack





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Churchill, Mr


Aitken, Jonathan
Clappison, James



Alexander, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Coe, Sebastian


Arbuthnot, James
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Congdon, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkins, Robert
Couchman, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Cran, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Baldry, Tony
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Day, Stephen


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bates, Michael
Devlin, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bellingham, Henry
Dicks, Terry


Bendall, Vivian
Dorrell, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dover, Den


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Duncan, Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Booth, Hartley
Dunn, Bob


Boswell, Tim
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dykes, Hugh


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Eggar, Tim


Bowden, Andrew
Elletson, Harold


Bowis, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bright, Graham
Evennett, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Faber, David


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fabricant, Michael


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Budgen, Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burns, Simon
Fishburn, Dudley


Burl, Alistair
Forman, Nigel


Butcher, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Butler, Peter
Forth, Eric


Butterfill, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
French, Douglas


Carrington, Matthew
Fry, Sir Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Gale, Roger


Cash, William
Gallie, Phil


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gardiner, Sir George


Chapman, Sydney
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan





Garnier, Edward
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Mates, Michael


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gorst, John
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Jeremy
Moss, Malcolm


Hannam, Sir John
Needham, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nelson, Anthony


Harris, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heald, Oliver
Norris, Steve


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hendry, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Paice, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patnick, Irvine


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Horam, John
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Rendel, David


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Richards, Rod


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Roger


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Soames, Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lidington, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Lord, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Luff, Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, David
Stephen, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Madel, Sir David
Streeter, Gary


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sumberg, David


Major, Rt Hon John
Sweeney, Walter


Malone, Gerald
Sykes, John


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)






Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Thomason, Roy
Watts, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whitney, Ray


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Thurnham, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wilkinson, John


Tracey, Richard
Willetts, David


Trend, Michael
Wilshire, David


Trotter, Neville
Wolfson, Mark


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wood, Timothy


Viggers, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walden, George



Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Tellers for the Noes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. Derek Conway.


Ward, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 17, line 17, after 'etc.)' insert 'or
(aa) the reasons the relations ceased to be so governed was that the employee was dismissed and the dismissal was unfair within the meaning of Part V of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978'.
As published, the Bill does not expressly cover those who may be unlawfully dismissed before the date of enactment and subsequently reinstated or re-engaged. In the case of people who are unlawfully dismissed, such reinstatement does not happen very often. Nevertheless, the Bill as printed puts question marks over whether it would cover such people, through the rules of reinstatement and re-engagement. We have tabled the amendment to give the Minister an opportunity to tell us whether that is the case.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I can understand why the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and his hon. Friends have tabled the amendment. If I follow what the hon. Gentleman said and what the amendment appears to do, the fear is that a ruthless employer could deprive employees of their right to protective status by dismissing them the day before, or shortly before, the schedule comes into effect, and re-employing them afterwards.
I doubt very much whether there is any prospect of that. However ruthless an employer is, he will know that his technically new employees will be able to opt out lawfully in three months. He will have gained very little, except to put himself at risk of having to pay compensation for the earlier unfair dismissals, should they be taken to a tribunal.
The employee has further protection in that, whatever was agreed verbally or in writing before the schedule, the employee will enjoy the protected right not to work on Sunday from day one. That reminds me of a case to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) referred a couple of debates back.
I do not believe that there is any need for the amendment, but I can imagine the hon. Gentleman asking why the Government do not simply accept it. My reply would be that, apart from the legislator's normal and sensible instinct not to overload Acts with unnecessary provisions, I believe that the amendment, as currently phrased, would extend the status of protected shopworker to anyone who had been unfairly dismissed from shop work for anything connected with Sunday working. That

would be the case even if the dismissal had occurred years ago, and compensation had been paid to an individual who might have embarked on a different form of livelihood.
I do not think that there are any loopholes, but I will look at the matter again. If the hon. Member for Rother Valley or any of his hon. Friends want to come and discuss the point or any specific worry that I have not covered, I shall be happy to talk to them. Like them, I want the protections provided in schedule 4 to be real and effective, without any loopholes.

Mr. Barron: On that basis, I shall not press the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 17, line 28, after 'states' insert
'that he wishes to work on Sunday or'.
This is a small change, but it is worth remarking upon. Amendment No. 67 is designed to remove the possibility of a doubt arising from the wording of the opting-in notice. It does not affect the rights and protections in the schedule, but it should help to avoid possible confusion in future and make it clear that the individual who opts into Sunday work wants to work.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Barron: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 17, line 35, after 'time' insert
'(whether or not he has previously given an opting-in notice).'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 38, page 17, line 37, at end insert
'(2A) It shall be the duty of an employer to give any person to whom this paragraph applies written notice of his right to object to Sunday working before requiring him or seeking to require him to work on Sunday at any time after the commencement date.'.
No. 45, in page 17, line 37, at end insert—
'(2B) The statement of employment particulars given to any shop worker to whom this paragraph applies shall include a statement of the right under this Act to refuse to work on Sunday.'
No. 46, in page 17, line 39, at end insert
'and "statement of employment particulars" means the statement required by section 1 of the 1978 Act'.
No. 47, in page 17, line 39, at end insert—
'4A. It shall be a duty of an employer of any shop worker to keep displayed at all times in a place to which the shop worker has reasonable access a statement of the rights of shop workers under this Act to object to Sunday working and the means by which they may do so,'
No. 48, in page 18, line 27, at end insert
'and (c) no subsequent opting-out notice has been given'.
No. 49, in page 18, line 27, at end insert—
'5A. An employer who receives an opting-in notice from a shop worker shall, within five days of receipt of that notice or before asking him to do shop work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday, whichever is the earlier, give to that shop worker a statement of his right to object to Sunday working and how to exercise that right, and a summary, in plain language, of the provisions of this Schedule as they relate to protected shop workers and opted-out shop workers.'

Mr. Barron: Amendment No. 44 is a probing amendment. We should like to know exactly how far people can go in opting in or out of Sunday working. There seems to be little flexibility in the Bill. Someone who agreed to start working on a Sunday might change his mind at some later stage in his life, perhaps for religious or family reasons, and want to opt out of his obligation under the Bill.
The subsequent amendments in the group would give people the right to know their status and what they can and cannot do under the legislation. It is interesting that the two bodies that have argued over many months, if not years, about how Sunday trading should operate—that is, the Shopping Hours Reform Council and Keep Sunday Special—are like-minded in that they believe that those who are in Sunday employment should have the right to know exactly what it entails.
Some of the amendments in the group require that employees be given written notice of their right to object. One amendment would put that right in their contract of employment under the 1978 legislation. Another would require—alternatively or perhaps even concurrently—that employees' rights should be displayed in their workplace. Many people at work are ignorant of their rights if those rights are not put in front of them. It seems that employers on both sides of the argument do not disagree with the purpose of the amendments.
I should be interested to know what the Minister has to say and whether he believes that some form of right to know could be included in the Bill so that people who work on Sundays can exercise their right to opt out if they want to do so at some stage.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Amendments Nos. 44 and 48 make explicit what the schedule is designed to deliver—a shopworker will be free to opt out of Sunday working, even if he has previously stated his willingness to work on Sundays by signing an opting-in notice. That can happen over a period in a person's shops career according to changes in his home needs, circumstances, conscience or other matter.
I do not believe that the amendments are strictly necessary because the schedule already provides for what they would achieve. However, like the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), I am keen that there should be no shadow of doubt that the rights are complete and cannot be encumbered. For once, exceptionally, I believe that it would be desirable to make the Bill so explicit that it ensures that there is no doubt in anyone's mind from the start.
I cannot accept the wording of the amendments. The hon. Gentleman will understand that draftsmen have slightly different ways of doing these things. However, I want to reach the objective that the hon. Gentleman wants to reach and to put it on the face of the Bill that the opportunity exists, as the hon. Gentleman believes that it should, and as the schedule certainly delivers, to opt out after once opting in and then to opt in again and opt out. A person's rights are not taken away if they are used once. I want that to be clearly understood.
Amendments Nos. 38, 45, 46, 47, and 49 are designed to ensure that retail employees are aware of their new rights. I share that objective. The right to opt out is radical and comprehensive but unusual and it will not always be fully taken on board by workers, even after the Bill has been on the statute book for some time. I do not guarantee, as I did for amendments Nos. 44 and 48, to adopt the intention of the amendments. I should like to study them more fully. I have not had long to study them. I should like to consider how best, and at what point, employers should be required to inform their staff of their rights under the schedule.
I aim to introduce a new amendment or set of amendments on Report. I want to meet the gist of what the

hon. Member for Rother Valley wants to do. As he said, there are various amendments in the group. I should like to look at them more closely. I hope that I have satisfied hi m that my aim is not dissimilar from his. I hope that that is sufficient to persuade the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment to a vote.

Mr. Alton: I thank the Minister for his reply to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). I share the sentiments expressed by the Minister and by the hon. Gentleman and those expressed in the amendments. The basic right of workers to know their entitlements and their right to protection is an obvious one. The Minister has been reasonable in his response to the amendments. I hope that he will ask his officials to draft amendments that concur with the spirit of what is sought in the amendments—the basic right to know—and that he will come back on Report or in another place determined to do that. The amendments are a much-needed improvement to the Bill. I am grateful for the tone that the Minister has adopted in answering the debate.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I share hon. Members' welcome of the Minister's statement, but I wish to press him on the issue. It is not enough to have a provision in the schedule. We are all aware of the difficulties of reading the small print. The average worker would not be in a position to read it. The employer may do so. It is important that, whatever happens, the employees' rights should be displayed in a public place so that the worker may know his or her rights, just as those of us who employ staff have to display in a public place a certificate of insurance to assure workers of their rights.

Mr. Barron: I thank the Minister for his words about the amendments, which I take in the spirit that he said them. I am aware of the intricacies of drafting. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Barron: I beg to move amendment No. 9 in page 18, line 30, leave out 'three months' and insert 'one month'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 51, in page 18, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

Mr. Barron: I said earlier that there was common agreement between the two competing campaigns—Keep Sunday Special and the Shopping Hours Reform Council—on the purpose of the previous group of amendments. My hon. Friends and I take the problem of notification seriously. The Keep Sunday Special campaign and the Shopping Hours Reform Council agree with the amendments and I hope that we can also get some agreement between Government and Opposition.
I shall not go into detail about the reasons for the amendments, except to quote a notice that other hon. Members will have received from the Shopping Hours Reform Council which states:
We believe that three months is too long a period. It opens the door to the occasional rogue employer to threaten an occasional Sunday worker with having to work every Sunday for three months if they opt out.
Under the circumstances, it seems that that could happen and I have no doubt that some people will say that it will happen if the Bill is enacted in its present form.
One month's notice is not unreasonable. In my experience—before I came to the House—Sunday work is normally done by agreement. If it is reasonable and practicable in most cases to shorten the amount of notice from three months to one month, that would allow us to prevent employers from forcing people to work every Sunday for three months.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take the amendments seriously. I hope that both sides of the Committee will agree to accept the amendments, or something broadly similar, so that we can ensure that employers are not allowed that opportunity.

Mr. Alton: As the Bill stands, shopworkers engaged to work on Sundays may give three months' written notice to their employers that they no longer wish to do so. At the end of that time, an employee who has given such notice would no longer be obliged to work on Sundays and would acquire protected employee status under the Bill.
As the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said, we must ask ourselves why the Government set a three-month notification period. Their reason is unclear. At best, it is random, irrational and has no real justification. At worst, such a long period—far longer than is necessary to serve the stated purpose—would give too great an opportunity to employers to coerce employees to work on Sundays, or even to dismiss them for refusing to do so.
The amendment would reduce the statutory period of notice from three months to one month. A one-month period represents a better balance between the interests of shop owners and shopworkers and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would be well advised to accept it.
From the shop owners' point of view, one month is more than enough time for them to reorder their staffing schedules. From the shopworkers' point of view, one month is a far more reasonable period to have to wait to stop working on Sundays. The inconvenience of a one-month period is minimal for employers, but the inconvenience to employees of a three-month period would be considerable.
There are many valid and important reasons why an employee may suddenly no longer want to work on Sundays. An employee's child, spouse or elderly relative may fall sick and need extra care at the weekends, or he or she may wish to join a sports team or social club which has its main event on a Sunday.
I am sure that hon. Members can think of many other legitimate reasons why employees may wish to stop working on Sundays as quickly as possible when their circumstances change. Putting that inconvenience to one side, a three-month wait may have more serious implications for an employee. Three months is a long time to have to resist the pressure and thinly veiled threats that will inevitably come from employers who will want all their staff to co-operate with their new Sunday opening patterns. A one-month period would mean that far fewer employees would cave in to that sort of improper pressure.
It is only right and fair that employees wishing to exercise their right not to have to work on Sundays should have to wait only as long as is necessary for their employer to rework the staffing schedule. One month is as long as is necessary. A one-month period of notice will protect the

rights of employees without harming the interests of employers. The amendment is good and sensible for all concerned and it ought to commend itself to the Committee.
In conclusion, I shall give some evidence for the need for employee protection. A survey of the growth of Sunday trading in Scotland, called "Scotland's Sunday under Pressure", was carried out by R. P. Lang in March 1989. It found that employees in one in four shops had no choice about Sunday working.
We also have evidence from New Zealand, where Sunday trading was legalised in 1990. The New Zealand legislation contained—as does the Bill—several employ-ment protection guarantees, including the provision that workers could not be forced to work on Sundays and that dismissal on such grounds could be the subject of an unfair dismissal action.
Professor Peter Brosnan, formerly reader in labour economics at the Victoria university of Wellington, has reviewed the outcome in a paper called "Liberalising Shop Trading Hours, the New Zealand Experience, 1990". He says:
The protections in the Act do not amount to much. Sunday trading has not become a matter of choice for workers. When a worker applies for a job in the retail industry, they are asked whether they will be prepared to work on weekends. Workers know they will only be offered the job if they say they are prepared to work … There are subtle pressures on established workers to work on weekends, too. Employers make appeals to company loyalty; not being prepared to work on weekends is a sign of 'disloyalty' … There is also the strong feeling of letting down one's co-workers. If the others do not want to work on Sundays, it seems selfish to refuse and increase the number of Sundays that others are forced to work.
There are pressures in the workplace and there will be greater pressures as a result of the Bill becoming an Act. It is therefore incumbent on us to do all that we can to protect those people who do not wish to work on a Sunday.
The amendment is reasonable and I hope that the Minister—in the same spirit that he showed when dealing with the last group—will accept it or will be prepared, if necessary, to return with his revised version on Report or in another place.

Mrs. Wise: I want to reinforce the remarks that have already been made. I am curious to know why a three-month time scale has been chosen. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said, it seems to be a random choice and it does not link with the timing of other things at work. For example, it is far longer than the notice that most people have to give if they want to leave a job. Most people have to give no more than one month's notice if they want to leave. Opting out of Sunday work is a much less dramatic change and it would be wrong to have that long period for no apparent reason.
Workers are in jeopardy. We have already heard about the first sacking—or what is believed to be the first—of a shopworker for refusing to work on Sundays. I entirely agree that three months allows too much time for pressure to be exerted on a worker.
The worker who has already been sacked is Mrs. Freda Love from the Gloucester area. It is instructive that her employer—unfortunately, the Co-op, which I deeply regret—has resolutely denied that she has been dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays. Her employer says that she has been dismissed for refusing to move to another store.


However, the proposed move would involve a journey of 20 miles for a lady who would have to use public transport, and we all know what that is like now.
I am reluctant to give employers more time in which to devise ways of increasing coercion. It seems to me that the period of three months has no validity whatsoever and that hon. Members should vote for the amendment if the Minister does not accept it. Like other hon. Members, I hope that he will.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Despite the remarkably unpacked Chamber, the amendments arouse particularly strong interest here, as elsewhere. I have listened carefully to the three speeches about them. It is plain to me that, despite the way in which this issue has been talked about elsewhere, it is a matter not of principle but of practicality. The principle is whether, in the special circumstances of Sunday shop work, the universal rule that a contract willingly entered into by both sides must be observed until both agree to change it. That issue was decided before publication of the Bill, which gives shopworkers the right to choose at any point in the future whether to opt in or to opt out.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) invited me to reveal the Government's thinking on the practical question of the length of notice, and the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) was curious about how the Government justified the period of three months. As I said during the discussion on earlier amendments, it was plain that there was a strong desire on both sides of the Committee and among the supporters of all the options—those who want shops largely to remain shut and those who want them to be entirely free to open—that shopworkers should have a continuing choice that they do not have in respect of weekday work. There is clearly a desire that, in the case of shopworkers, Sunday should be regarded as special and that normal contract rules should not apply.
The Government responded with schedule 4, which gives all shopworkers, present and future, the right to opt out of Sunday work at three months' notice without a detrimental effect on their weekday work. During the period of notice, no employer may pile on extra Sunday work unless the employee previously agreed to Sunday work and that is what he is resigning from. There is no way in which an employer can change previously agreed arrangements for Sunday working. Of course, an existing shopworker is able to opt out—that is not the technically correct expression—from day one.

Mr. Ray Powell: Am I to understand it that an employer can expect an employee to work every Sunday if that person opted in, or will the employee have a right to do only occasional Sunday work?

Mr. Lloyd: An existing shopworker will be entirely at liberty to continue to work on any Sundays that fall into the previous pattern, if he finds that acceptable. However, if he does not want to do any Sunday work at all, or if he wants to change the existing pattern, he may make the change straight away. A new employee agreeing to do some Sunday working opts in. The opting-in process involves his saying that he has no objection to Sunday work—following the debate on an earlier amendment, I intend to make the provision more positive—but that does not mean that he agrees to work on a particular Sunday or a particular series of Sundays. There must be a second agreement specifying the working Sundays or how the pattern will be

established. That is what. becomes enforceable until the employee decides to opt out. However, he must work as agreed for up to three months.

Mr. Boateng: Does the Minister envisage that it will be possible for an employer to insert a contract clause stating that an employee must work on Sunday at the discretion of management? If so, will there be any means of preventing the management from requiring the employee to work every Sunday?

Mr. Lloyd: That is an interesting point. If an agreement contained such a provision in the case of an opted-in worker, it might well be enforceable for at least the three months. The hon. Gentleman smiles as if to show that he has achieved an enormously effective breakthrough in argument. In the case of an existing shopworker, anything signed before the entry into force of these provisions would not be enforceable by the employer. However, the provision is much narrower than is implied by the hon. Gentleman's question and by his smile.

Ms Eagle: I should like to raise a slightly different point. It concerns future employees, who, under this legislation, will have the right to give notice of their intention to opt out of Sunday work. My concern—I should appreciate guidance on whether my interpretation of the law is correct—is that, although, in theory, a worker could give his employer notice of his intention to opt out of Sunday work and would therefore be an opted-out worker, a relatively new employee, under current legislation, has no employment rights or protection against unfair dismissal unless he has worked for two years or five years, depending on whether he is full time or part time. What worries me is that it might be possible for an employer to dismiss a worker during the three-month period and claim that there were redundancies or fail to give a reason at all.

Mr. Lloyd: I understand the hon. Lady's point, on which some amendments will be discussed later tonight. The protections apply from day one. They are not like the other employment legislation, under which there must be a two-year qualifying period. Here, protection starts on the first day of employment. Of course, the notice period of three months applies. However, unfair dismissal arising from refusal to do Sunday work or from notice of intention to opt out is covered.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Many weekend jobs are done by casual workers, although some are permanent. Several of us are old enough to remember the bad old days when people could be dismissed at a moment's notice. Is the Minister satisfied that an employer could not find reasons other than unwillingness to work on Sundays for discharging a person? If an ordinary worker is required to give one month's notice, why is it necessary to introduce a period of three months for Sunday work? I find it strange that an employer can get away with one month's notice from an employee to terminate employment but the employee is required to give three months' notice to stop working on Sundays.

Mr. Lloyd: That is part of the argument through which I am moving logically. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's second point when I come to it. On his first point, I am certain that protections exist for employees who have been dismissed or otherwise detrimentally affected in


their work because of their refusal to work on Sundays and the dismissal has been dressed up as being for some other reason. If such a case is taken to a tribunal, it can uncover whether that has happened. It is for the employee not to prove why he was proceeded against unfairly but only to show the tribunal that he was dismissed. It is then up to the employer to show the reasons for the dismissal and prove that those were appropriate to his decision to dismiss. That is how it works.
I realise that some cases are difficult for tribunals to determine and that some employees will not always want to go to a tribunal, but I am confident that the machinery is in place to resolve those matters in that way.
What has not been said in the debate so far, and has been largely omitted from the critical amendments that we have been discussing, is that the rights and protections in schedule 4 are radical, special and sweeping. The House should acknowledge that. The rights and protections provided by the schedule mean that shopworkers will have a continuing choice as to whether to make themselves available for Sunday work. It will be entirely up to them, so long as they give reasonable notice to their employers that, having been available, they no longer wish to be so. The matter of principle is therefore settled and is wholly in favour of employees.
This debate is about practicalities and the schedule sets three months' notice. I now come to the point in which the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) was interested. Amendment No. 9 suggests that one month's notice would be sufficient. The effect of amendment No. 51 would be to require no notice at all. I am not sure whether that was its intention, but that is what it would achieve, so amendment No. 51 would not be reasonable. It would clearly be impossible for an employer to operate if he had no advance knowledge of which of his staff would turn up when he opened his shop on a Sunday. I hope that the Committee will reject that amendment, as it is not a seriously arguable proposition.
I can see, however, the force of amendment No. 9 and the arguments used to promote it. They were buttressed in each of the speeches by Opposition Members by undertakings and quotations from major retailers in the Shopping Hours Reform Council who said that they would have no problem with one month's notice. I hope that my comments do not raise false expectations that I can accept amendment No. 9. I must make it clear that I cannot. But I accept the fact that many large shops with a lot of staff and a well-understood product range will be able to manage perfectly well with one month's notice. I suspect that some could manage with only a week's notice, but plenty of other shops, particularly small ones and those with specialised product ranges, are convinced that they could not.
If a shop has a staff of 30 or 40 people, it can manage if four or five of them give a month's notice that they will no longer come in on a Sunday in four or five weeks' time. But if a shop employs only one or two people who need considerable experience or training, it will sometimes be impossible to make adequate replacement arrangements in a month and induct new staff properly and fully into the business.
Opposition Members have waxed fairly eloquent on behalf of employees and, by extension, of large shops, but

they have forgotten the small specialist shops, which also have a right to have their interests taken into account. Customers of hi-fi shops expect knowledgeable advice from shop staff, as do customers buying carpets from specialist carpet shops. By contrast, customers buying groceries at a supermarket seldom need to know the answers to questions of greater technical profundity than on which shelf the baked beans are stacked.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I have tried to follow the Minister's argument. How much easier is it for small shopkeepers to replace staff who give one month's notice? It sometimes means that they are finished. If they can cope with that, why does the Minister say that they will have extreme difficulty coping with one month's notice to replace somebody for casual Sunday work?

Mr. Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a good intervention. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill gave the answer when he described why people may want to change their arrangements for Sunday working. It must be remembered that, if they work during the week, their livelihood does not depend on Sunday working; some of their income depends on it, but they can manage perfectly well without it. The hon. Gentleman explained that they might want to join a sports club that operates on Sundays or change their pattern of activity. We all know that there are many reasons why Sunday working may become unattractive.
When employees leave employment altogether, they are making a big decision to vacate a job that provides their livelihood. If they cease to work on one or two Sundays in a month, having worked on Sundays for the past two or three years because it suited them as they were saving for a mortgage or for some other purpose, and they now join a rugby club or some other organisation that operates on a Sunday, that is a small decision for them. The inevitable and perfectly acceptable outcome of the changes which the schedule makes is that people will make such choices at different times in their lives because of different pressures. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has given one of the major reasons why the notice period must be three months. It will be a right of which employees can take advantage when circumstances in their lives change.

Mr. Alton: I am dumbfounded by the Minister's argument. The point that I was making was that, for all the reasons that he has adumbrated, three months is too long. One month's notice is all that is needed to achieve all the objectives that he has described. How can the Minister deduce as a logical argument the concept of hanging on for a further two months after an employee has given notice to his employer that he wants to change his working practices?

Mr. Lloyd: There are problems for employers when employees give one month's notice, but it happens a little less often and a little less unexpectedly because an employee is making a large decision which is taken carefully. To opt in or out of Sunday working is a much smaller decision that could be taken much more frequently and possibly by many employees in a particular store at the same time. Small shops especially need the extra protection, as do specialist shops where a newcomer to the staff needs to be trained. It does not eliminate the problem for small shops, but it certainly reduces it.

Mrs. Wise: Does the Minister realise that what he has just said amounts to an admission that choice for shopworkers is all very well so long as they do not really want to exercise it?

Mr. Lloyd: No, I have not said that. As the hon. Lady knows, if employees want to exercise choice, they must give three months' notice. There is no question but that choice exists. At issue is the practical question of how much notice it is reasonable to give. I am sure that large shops and chains that say that one month is enough will want to be as good as their word and still seek only one month's notice from their employees. But the law must be a universal minimum with as many of those who are covered being able to manage under it. Good employers will always want to improve on that minimum. I hope that the leading employers of the SHRC who say that they can manage with less will do so. There is no compulsion for them to take three months, but if we are making a law that should suit everybody, three months is probably the most sensible and fair balance.

7 pm

Ms Glenda Jackson: The Minister was speaking about specialist shops that require specific training. If I remember correctly, he spoke of shops that sold carpets. In many of those specialist shops, as well as a basic wage there is also a commission on sales achieved. The Minister is suggesting that someone must give three months' notice. When an employee is leaving, it is human nature that it will be in the shop owner's best interest to revert to the staff who are remaining or to those who are being trained possible sales that will produce a sizeable amount of commission. The Minister is advocating that, for three months, a shopworker will see his or her income reduced. A month is manageable, three months is not.

Mr. Lloyd: Of course, it is perfectly manageable for the employee in that situation. Different shops, stores and relationships between the employer and employee may make different agreements between the employer and employee desirable or possible. We are talking about the minimum requirement of the law. The minimum requirement should have a universal validity and practicality. I do not think that one month will be sufficient for all retail outlets. As I have said, many will do better than that if better is to accept a shorter notice. That is wholly admirable. It is wholly admirable that the retail trade is thinking in terms of good practice guidelines. We are talking about the minimum. The minimum is three months, otherwise some retailers could find particular difficulties. I have already mentioned the types that could.
I do not think that three months is a great hardship on most employees, because if they had entered a job after the changes in the law, when it was clear that there would be Sunday working, they would have known full well that it was expected of them. If they were existing workers, they would have agreed to do such time anyway; they would have agreed with the specification of how much they were to work on Sunday.
When an employee wants to opt out, he or she often has good reasons for so doing. Those reasons are usually predictable. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, when those reasons are, for example, a sick relative or a crisis in the family, one month is far too long. What one needs is a reasonable employer, with a

reasonable agreement. I would expect all employers, particularly those with valued employees who have given them good service, to show such flexibility, which they do now and would still have to do when the notice is only one month. For the reasons that I have given, it is clear that we are not asking for the period of notice always to be three months. The law should specify that that should be the minimum demanded. If an employer and employee can arrange something less, particularly in a time of crisis, I applaud them in so doing.

Mr. Barron: The Minister is quite right to say that existing workers will have already agreed to three months. That is because it is in the Bill. If one month were in the Bill, they would have agreed to that.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. They do not have to agree to three months. After the measure comes into force, there is no agreement. They may stop at any time they like. It is only three months if they formally enter into an arrangement with their employer.

Mr. Barron: The Minister started by saying in effect that a contract is usually drawn up willingly between an employer and employee, although he did not say it in exactly that way. He has spent the past five minutes reminding the Committee how the contract of employment is usually loaded against the employee, as is the Bill. I am not talking about rugby clubs in particular. I said that somebody might change to the Christian religion and suddenly want to get out of having to commit himself to continuing to work on Sunday for three months. Given that the lobbyists, who have been lobbying to change the present legislation over many years, would agree to one month, I see no justification for leaving the schedule as it stands. On that basis, the Opposition do not agree with the Minister.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 280, Noes 298.

Division No. 114]
[7.06 pm 


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Ainger, Nick
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Burden, Richard


Allen, Graham
Byers, Stephen


Alton, David
Caborn, Richard


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Austin-Walker, John
Canavan, Dennis


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cann, Jamie


Barnes, Harry
Chisholm, Malcolm


Barron, Kevin
Clapham, Michael


Battle, John
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Beggs, Roy
Clelland, David


Bell, Stuart
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Coffey, Ann


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cohen, Harry


Benton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Berts, Clive
Corbett, Robin


Blair, Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blunkett, David
Corston, Ms Jean


Boateng, Paul
Cousins, Jim


Boyes, Roland
Cox, Tom


Bradley, Keith
Cryer, Bob


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cummings, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence






Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Keen, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)


Darling, Alistair
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davidson, Ian
Khabra, Piara S.


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Denham, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Dewar, Donald
Leighton, Ron


Dixon, Don
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Donohoe, Brian H.
Litherland, Robert


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Livingstone, Ken


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Loyden, Eddie


Eastham, Ken
Lynne, Ms Liz


Enright, Derek
McAllion, John


Etherington, Bill
McAvoy, Thomas


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McCartney, Ian


Fatchett, Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Faulds, Andrew
McFall, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McKelvey, William


Fisher, Mark
Mackinlay, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
McLeish, Henry


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Maclennan, Robert


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Foster, Don (Bath)
McNamara, Kevin


Foulkes, George
McWilliam, John


Fraser, John
Madden, Max


Fyfe, Maria
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Galloway, George
Mahon, Alice


Gapes, Mike
Mandelson, Peter


Garrett, John
Marek, Dr John


George, Bruce
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Martlew, Eric


Godsiff, Roger
Maxton, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meacher, Michael


Gordon, Mildred
Meale, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Michael, Alun


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Milburn, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Andrew


Gunnell, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hain, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Mike
Morgan, Rhodri


Hanson, David
Morley, Elliot


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Harvey, Nick
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Henderson, Doug
Mowlam, Marjorie


Heppell, John
Mudie, George


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mullin, Chris


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Paul


Hoey, Kate
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Hara, Edward


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Olner, William


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Simon (Southward)
Pendry, Tom


Hutton, John
Pickthall, Colin


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L.


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prescott, John


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Randall, Stuart


Jowell, Tessa
Raynsford, Nick





Redmond, Martin
Stott, Roger


Reid, Dr John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Rendel, David
Straw, Jack


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rogers, Allan
Tipping, Paddy


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dennis


Rooney, Terry
Tyler, Paul


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Vaz, Keith


Rowlands, Ted
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Ruddock, Joan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Sedgemore, Brian
Wallace, James


Shearman, Barry
Walley, Joan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Short, Clare
Watson, Mike


Simpson, Alan
Wicks, Malcolm


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wise, Audrey


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wray, Jimmy


Soley, Clive
Wright, Dr Tony


Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spellar, John



Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Jim Dowd.


Steinberg, Gerry



Stevenson, George





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aitken, Jonathan
Carrington, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Cash, William


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Chapman, Sydney


Amess, David
Churchill, Mr


Arbuthnot, James
Clappison, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Ashby, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Aspinwall, Jack
Coe, Sebastian


Atkins, Robert
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Congdon, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Conway, Derek


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Couchman, James


Bates, Michael
Cran, James


Batiste, Spencer
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bellingham, Henry
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bendall, Vivian
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Day, Stephen


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Body, Sir Richard
Devlin, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dickens, Geoffrey


Booth, Hartley
Dicks, Terry


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Duncan, Alan


Bowden, Andrew
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bowis, John
Dunn, Bob


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brandreth, Gyles
Dykes, Hugh


Brazier, Julian
Eggar, Tim


Bright, Graham
Elletson, Harold


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Burns, Simon
Evennett, David


Burt, Alistair
Fabricant, Michael


Butcher, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Butler, Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butterfill, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Forman, Nigel






Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas



Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Madel, Sir David


Fry, Sir Peter
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gale, Roger
Malone, Gerald


Gallie, Phil
Mans, Keith


Gardiner, Sir George
Marland, Paul


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marlow, Tony


Garnier, Edward
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Mates, Michael


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moate, Sir Roger


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve


Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heald, Oliver
Ottaway, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Robert
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Pawsey, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Richards, Rod


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jessel, Toby
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Birm E'st'n)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, Sir David
Sims, Roger


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Soames, Nicholas


Legg, Barry
Speed, Sir Keith


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sproat, Iain


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael





Stern, Michael
Walden, George


Stewart, Allan
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Streeter, Gary
Waller, Gary


Sumberg, David
Ward, John


Sweeney, Walter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sykes, John
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Watts, John


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Whitney, Ray


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Thomason, Roy
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilkinson, John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Willetts, David


Thurnham, Peter
Wilshire, David


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wolfson, Mark


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Tredinnick, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trend, Michael



Trotter, Neville
Tellers for the Noes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Michael Brown.


Viggers, Peter



Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Question accordingly negatived.

Ms Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 18, line 31, at end insert—

'Limitation on working hours on Sunday

6A. No shop worker shall be employed on Sunday for more than eight hours and any provision in any shop worker's contract of employment or in any agreement which requires, or may have the effect of requiring, that worker to be so employed for more than eight hours is unenforceable to the extent that it so requires or may so require.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 60, in page 19, line 29, at end insert—

'Minimum Hourly Rate of Pay

Whether employed full or part-time including Sunday only employees, the minimum hourly rate payable to such employees for Sunday shop work before any enhancement is calculated, shall be calculated by reference to the prevailing income support benefit rate or its nearest approximate successor rate applicable to those in receipt of such benefit aged 25 years and over multiplied by three and divided by thirty-seven.'.

No. 65, in page 19, line 29, at end insert—

'Right to double-time payments

9A.—(1) A shop worker working on a Sunday shall be remunerated at twice the hourly rate applicable on a weekday to that job.

(2) It shall be the duty of the employer of a shop worker working on a Sunday to give him a written statement of the hourly rate applicable for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above and of how that rate has been determined.

(3) A complaint by a shop worker that he has not been remunerated as required by sub-paragraph (1) above, that he has not been given any statement required by sub-paragraph (2) above or that he is aggrieved by anything in or by any omission from such a statement may be presented to an industrial tribunal.

(4) An individual tribunal shall not consider a complaint under sub-paragraph (3) above unless it is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of three months beginning when the act complained of was done.

(5) Where an industrial tribunal finds that a complaint presented to it under sub-paragraph (3) above is well founded the tribunal shall make such of the following as it considers just and equitable—
(a) an order declaring the rights of the complainant and the respondent in relation to the act to which the complaint relates, and
(b) an order requiring the respondent to pay to the complainant compensation not exceeding the limit for the time being imposed by section 75 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.'.

No. 56, in page 21, line 47, at end insert—
'14A The extent of any failure by an employer to remunerate a shop worker as required under paragraph 9A above shall be regarded as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of that shop worker and the relevant provisions of Part I of the Wages Act 1986 shall accordingly apply in respect of that failure.'.

No. 66, in page 22, line 10, at end insert—
'17A. In section 136 of the 1978 Act (appeals from industrial tribunals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal) in subsection (1) after paragraph (g), there shall be inserted the words—
(h) the Sunday Trading Act 1994.".'.

Ms Ruddock: I think that there has been some confusion in people's minds about the Bill. The option voted for by a majority of the House was six-hour trading. Many people have equated that with the idea of six-hour working, perhaps believing that those who go to work in shops on a Sunday will, if the Bill becomes law, be required to work for only six hours. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In the larger shops, with an eight-hour trading period, it is likely that shopworkers will be in the stores serving customers for the six-hour period; but, as became clear in the Standing Committee, there would also be a need for what is termed "shopping up" at the end of the day. That could take up an extra half hour. In addition, shelves and tills will have to be prepared before the shops open to the public. Hence we can assume that the shopworkers in the larger stores, dealt with under the registration scheme in the Bill, may be working at least seven hours, and possibly longer.
When it comes to the smaller shops, hon. Members may not have observed that there is no limit on the number of hours that they can open once the Bill becomes law. The representatives of the small shops' pressure groups have not sought to amend the Bill to impose a limit on the number of hours that they can open. It is my view that we shall have to attend to that on Report, especially in the light of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill which, as my hon. Friends have already pointed out, will open the door to 24-hour trading from Monday to Saturday. There will therefore be an obvious need to put some limit on opening hours for the smaller shops on Sundays.
This, however, is not an option in the schedule that we are considering. Our option is to amend the Bill so that there is a restriction on the number of hours that shopworkers in any sort of retail outlet can work. We have chosen a limit of eight hours, which seems to us a reasonable time for people to work. They should certainly not work longer than that. If the limit were lower, that would disadvantage workers, in that other provisions of employment protection—mean and miserable though they are under this Government—start with the basic unit of the eight-hour day. That is why we chose eight hours.
We believe that, if hon. Members have any intention of maintaining the special nature of Sunday, they cannot possibly endorse the view that shopworkers should be at work for more than eight hours. I suggest that it will be ideological dogma on the part of the Government if the Minister cannot accept this modest, reasonable amendment.
Amendments Nos. 65, 56 and 66 are all concerned with double-time payments. We believe it right to link double-time payments with the limit on hours that I have already discussed, for the purposes of debate. We shall,

however, decide whether to press these amendments to a vote after hearing what the Minister has to say. With your indulgence, Mr. Lofthouse, we will press for a separate Division on the amendment dealing with double-time payments—amendment No. 65.

The First Deputy Chairman: indicated assent.

Ms Ruddock: I assume from your nod that my request will be granted, for which I am grateful.
It is extremely important that those who go to work on a Sunday receive double-time payments. According to the spring 1992 labour force survey, about 2·3 million employees usually work on Sundays—a very large number of people, whose lives are greatly affected by their need to work on Sundays. They are, however, only 11 per cent. of all employees; 89 per cent. of employees do not work on Sundays. So for the vast majority of working people Sunday remains a special day, set apart for social, recreational and leisure purposes.
Many of the public who support extended Sunday opening regard shopping as a leisure and recreational pursuit—a family-based option that they want on a Sunday. I am not one of those people—I can manage to do my shopping between Monday and Saturday—but I am aware of changing public attitudes, and, as responsible representatives, we must take account of them. Not only do the majority of workers not work on a Sunday: they would not choose to work on a Sunday, either. For that very reason the public are more than sympathetic to the idea that those who give up their leisure pursuits on a Sunday in order to go to work should be rewarded.
Most people regard Sunday as a special day, which is why it seems to them, as it does to my hon. Friends and me, that it is only just that those who forgo their vital opportunities to share social pursuits with friends and family on a Sunday should get double-time payments.
Some Conservative Members have argued that Sunday is a special day, and claim that they have voted only for partial deregulation, congratulating themselves on the employment protections in the Bill. Surely they must acknowledge that all that underlines the thesis that Sunday is a special day, and that those who go to work on it should have some recompense for the fact that they are at work.
For a long time, Sunday has been recognised in many industries as a day of unsocial hours. When I spoke of the millions of employees who work on Sundays, I was not thinking of those who have been working illegally; I was thinking of people who legally work on Sundays. Through their trade unions, they have negotiated wages and conditions that reflect these unsocial hours. I remind the Committee that double-time payments are still extensively paid in many sectors of the economy. I understand that about 3 million local authority workers receive double-time payments, as do 500,000 NHS workers and more than 250,000 civil servants—I could add to that list.
So there are clear precedents; double-time payments for unsocial hours, which certainly cover Sunday working, have been the norm in the past. A number of major retail employers have also paid double time. Some of them have been making those payments to workers who work perfectly legally in Scotland. Many of them have also been paying double-time wages to employees who are exempt under current law. But a considerable number—hundreds


of thousands—are working illegally on a Sunday, for whom double-time or other premium payments have been made by their employers.
7.30 pm
It would not be stretching the imagination too far to believe that many of those employers have cynically coerced their workers into Sunday working illegally on the basis of premium pay. They have given that inducement, and one can well understand why their employees have been willing to work on a Sunday and receive double the hourly rate of a weekday. Doubtless some employers have acted on the basis of cynical coercion. I suspect that other employers genuinely believe in rewarding workers appropriately.
The performance of some companies is important to the debate and the way in which Ministers respond to it. Double-time payments have been made to Sunday workers by Allied Maples, Owen Owen, Victoria Wine, Presto and Lo-cost, Littlewoods, the retail co-operative societies, William Low, Safeway, and Tesco. Some of those companies, notably Safeway and Tesco, have made it clear in advance of the debate that they intend to pay the same double-time payments regardless of the debate's outcome. They are to be commended. But from the list that I have given, it will be clear that those companies are in the minority, and we want the provision to cover all companies.
I understand from the shopworkers' union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, that other companies were once prepared to agree such arrangements but, over the years—recently, in some cases—they have reduced the premiums that they have made available to Sunday workers.
Some companies that employ Sunday-only staff have given a worse rate of pay to those staff than to employees who work on other days of the week and voluntarily work on Sundays in addition to their normal working week. Asda, B&Q, Budgens, Gateway, Woolworth and Sainsbury all have forms of premium pay that fall short of double-time payments. That is most regrettable, as there can be little doubt that those companies are all profitable and able to reward their workers accordingly.
We are most worried, not about the voluntary agreements already entered into, which may or may not be kept once the Bill becomes law, but about the way in which some companies have reversed their policies. In doing so, they may have begun a trend that others will follow.
If Parliament does not intervene and legislate, the sort of action that has occurred at the Morrison supermarket group based in the north of England and the midlands may happen on a wider scale. Again, my information comes from USDAW.
That group employs 16,000 people, about half of whom are vulnerable, part-time and casual workers. Until recently, the company refused on principle to trade illegally on Sundays. It ensured that its workers who could legally work on Sundays received double-time payments. I am sorry to say that, in recent months, that company, like others, has begun to break the law regularly and openly, and to trade illegally on Sundays.
I have been told that, in the past few weeks, the company has given notice that it intends to roster Sundays as a normal working day for all new recruits so that Sunday working will no longer be voluntary. It also intends to abandon its commitment to double-time payments and pay

only time-and-a-fifth. It is expected to abandon that commitment as it foresees Sunday becoming just another working day.
Those policies go against the spirit of the Bill, and against the many assurances that Ministers have given us. They are clear evidence that at least one company, in anticipating the legalisation of Sunday trading, has not been prepared to continue treating its workers properly or to recognise the voluntary principle. It is turning its back on agreements on wages and other conditions.
Although the Minister has not jumped to his feet as I thought he would, I am sure that he will say later that, if and when the Bill becomes law, the company will be breaking the law in respect of some of the practices that I have described. The Minister will no doubt say that the company cannot avoid the voluntary principle, and will have to allow its workers to opt out if they choose to do so. He will say that, if the company puts pressure on its workers to work on a Sunday against their will, they will, under the legislation, be able to seek redress.
I agree with the Minister on all those points, but if workers are to have real choice and can decide whether or not to work on a Sunday, the company must seek to gather a significant pool of volunteers. How can a company do that if it is only prepared to make plain-time payments on Sunday, not premium payments?

Ms Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the distinction between statutory premium payments and voluntary premium payments is important, not only because it ensures that the market does not drive down wage rates to unacceptable levels, but because of the new structure of employment law? That structure ensures that, if someone is sacked for asserting a statutory right, he or she has the right to go to a tribunal to seek compensation.
That compensation would be significantly higher than would be expected if someone went to a tribunal for any other reason. Statutory premium payments would increase workers' protection against unfair and arbitrary treatment.

Ms Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for her most valuable and clear contribution. Everything she has said is a clear endorsement of the amendment.
The history of the one company that I have described shows the slippery slope down which others might follow. If the Government want the Bill to reach the statute book, they should follow the example of those employers who have said that premium payments and double-time payments are acceptable and necessary to gain a pool of volunteers, and only just and fair to those who give up their time to work on a Sunday to benefit the rest of us.
In saying in advance that they will resist the amendment, the Government fail to recognise the way in which payments and the voluntary principle are interlinked. One Sunday, I paid a private visit to the workers in one of the supermarket stores in my constituency to discuss why they were working. The majority answer was that they were working for the money. Their answer is an indictment of the society in which we live, the recession, and the fact that people are so desperate for money that they are willing to work on a Sunday.
The workers in that Tesco store were receiving on Sunday twice the wage that they would receive on any other day of the week. For some employees, that wage is the only one they take home; for others, it represents a critical supplement to the family budget. Those people


work on Sundays because they need the money, not because they choose to spend time serving behind the checkout counters in our supermarkets.
The Minister may say that many people work on a Sunday, that they do so freely and that it has historically been so, but they work in industries and professions where it is necessary, a duty to society and part of the public service to work on Sundays. Those who work in the caring or emergency services have always accepted that they should be prepared to work, in a sense, a seven-day week. That is not true of retailing. Shops do not need to open on Sundays.
The House has voted for shops to open on Sundays, although it may not endorse that decision at a later stage. If shops are to open on Sundays, their workers should receive as of right twice the weekly rate of pay for working on any other day.

Mr. Ray Powell: I support amendment No. 65 on double-time payments for shopworkers. After leaving Pentre grammar school, my first job, at the age of 16, was behind the counter of the Co-operative Society shop in Treherbert. It was just after the war. There was a sugar supply depot underneath the shop and we were asked to work on Sunday to load the shop's vans with extra sugar supplies. Even then, and I am going back a few years, we were paid double time for working on Sunday.
We are now to decide whether shopworkers should be paid double time for Sunday work, so what has changed? My wages at the Co-operative Society were not high enough, and at the age of 17 I went to work on the railways as a fireman. At that time, almost 50 years ago, British Rail paid its firemen, drivers, porters and guards double time for working on Sunday, yet tonight we are debating whether double time should be paid. The responsibility for that lies with the Government because they presented the Bill on deregulation. At first, they wanted total deregulation, but to appease their friends and others, they decided to support partial deregulation whereby all shops could open and the big shops could open for only six hours on a Sunday. A lot of my hon. Friends fell into the trap, but 90 of the Government's supporters voted for the Keep Sunday Special option.
The debate on keeping Sunday special was about employment protection and double time pay for shopworkers, which is what Keep Sunday Special has advocated since 1986. We have not changed our minds—we are determined that workers should have minimum double time pay if they are expected to work.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does not the argument go further than that? Is not my hon. Friend, robustly as always, giving the Minister the chance to enhance his promotion prospects by going "back to basics"?

Mr. Powell: Quite. I do not know where it will lead if we start to debate "back to basics", but surely that policy should mean allowing double pay and maintaining tranquillity on Sundays, as enjoyed by my generation and that of my father and grandfather, and should not lead to the pollution of the environment. Sunday shopping will increase pollution. Last Friday, we had a tremendous debate in the Chamber about the amount of environmental

pollution that will be created by Sunday opening. Traffic and energy consumption in shops will increase by seven-days-a-week opening.
7.45 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) will have a marvellous time shopping from Monday to Saturday, with shops open 24 hours a day, six days a week—144 hours a week in total. I am sure, therefore, that she will not want to shop on Sunday. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who boasts that he always shops on Sunday, will not want to do so now that shops are open 144 hours a week. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford referred to unsocial hours. We worked unsocial hours on the railway. We went to work at 2am or 3am, but we were paid well compared with other people for working unsocial hours. Have the Government considered extra pay for shopworkers who must work unsocial hours and must man shops for 24 hours a day?

Mr. Grocott: Is not it worthy of note that the Government are clearly treating the important amendments with contempt because, on the Government Benches, there is a Whip, who looks rather sleepy and is obliged to be here, a Minister, who is obliged to be here—both of them are paid additional salaries for being here—and a Parliamentary Private Secretary, who hopes to earn an additional salary in the future for his loyal attendance today? That shows the Government's contempt for the issues that we are debating.

Mr. Powell: I am glad that my hon. Friend made that intervention. The lack of Conservative Members is very noticeable. Indeed, during the previous debate, the Minister referred to the empty Benches and, within a matter of minutes, they started to fill, mostly on the Opposition side. The attendance of Conservative Members is deplorable. My hon. Friend is right to raise that matter. The previous amendment, which proposed protection for workers, was voted down by 298 to 280—a majority of 18. That is one vote more than their majority in the Keep Sunday Special vote on 6 December.
I do not know whether the Minister is pleased with the result tonight and with the fact that he has a sufficient majority to vote down every reasoned amendment that the Opposition have tabled. My hon. Friends were deluded into voting for the Government's proposal by promises about employment protection. Those promises were made only four days before the vital vote, but during the two years that I fought for my private Member's Bill on Sunday trading, the Government constantly told me that they would not give concessions on employment protection and would not consider double time for Sunday work. It was not Government policy. During that period, they abolished the wages councils, the only protection on which shopworkers could depend. They now pretend that they will ensure employment protection for shopworkers.

Ms Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government continually vote against amendments that seek employment protection, those of us who voted for partial deregulation on a wait-and-see basis—we said that we would wait and see what employment protection would amount to when the Bill left Committee—will have no option but to vote against the Bill on Third Reading?

Mr. Powell: I am very glad that my hon. Friend raised that important point. On Report we shall highlight the fact that the Government clearly promised employment protection and, in so doing, denied us the right to amend the Bill by turning down all our amendments. We tabled 23 amendments and four new clauses and I should not be surprised if, at the end of tonight's debate, we find that we have been defeated on them all. We should bear that in mind on Report and Third Reading. I am confident that unless the Minister promises to support double-time payments now he will find that some Conservative Members will join us in voting against the Bill. What would happen then?
If the Bill were defeated, we should be left with the Shops Act 1950. We should not be afraid of that. It would give my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who is the president of the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers, the satisfaction of knowing that her members would be protected to a certain extent. Shopworkers have some protection under the Act but the Bill would take it away.
I am not aware of all the information distributed by USDAW—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Preston or my party's Front-Bench spokesmen have it. For some unknown reason, my sources of information from USDAW have dried up since USDAW changed its mind about supporting Keep Sunday Special and decided to support the Shopping Hours Reform Council. I do not know why I no longer receive information. I do not seek a confrontation with USDAW and I accept its decision.
I was talking about the promises that the Tories made when the Bill was first debated. When I read the Second Reading debate, I believed that the Government would be reasonable and offer three options but, in fact, there were four. I cannot blame the Government for the fourth but I know their strategy. The first option was total deregulation; the second was the Keep Sunday Special option; and the third was that supported by the Shopping Hours Reform Council. The Government tried their best to confuse us by allowing a fourth option to be introduced but Keep Sunday Special was prepared to do everything possible to reduce the complexity of the vote on 8 December, unlike the Government.
It is passing strange to say the least that the press did not highlight the Government's defeat on 8 December which was far worse than the defeat in 1986 when I was proud to be able to announce that the Government were beaten by 14 votes despite having a majority of 140. This time, the Government received 174 votes for total deregulation but there were 404 against. That clearly shows the feelings of hon. Members at the time.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman was right and the Government's option was total deregulation—which it was not—the voting should tell him that the Government allowed a completely free vote so the result was a true decision of the House. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not muddy the water by pretending that the Government had a secret agenda—they did not.

Mr. Powell: The Minister made the same comment to me in Committee on 8 December. However, in the week before the vote on 8 December the Evening Standard carried one big headline which said that Major supported total deregulation. It was also reported on the inside pages that the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the

Exchequer supported total deregulation. It stated that 90 per cent. of the Cabinet and a number of hon. Members supported that option, so the Minister cannot argue that total deregulation was not the Government's preference when all his senior Cabinet colleagues supported it. He said that there was a free vote on 8 December; why is there not a free vote tonight on employment protection? Why is there not a free vote on double-time payments? If there were a free vote, I am sure that 298 hon. Members would not have voted against the previous amendment.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Is there a free vote for Labour Members tonight? I ask only out of interest.

Mr. Powell: Of course we have a three-line Whip. The Government used a three-line Whip to get the partial deregulation option passed. If we examine the chapter and verse of what they were offering in terms of employment protection, it is clear that some of my colleagues were conned. We tried to explain where they have been conned and criticised them for it but some Conservative Members have also been conned.
This group of amendments contains some reasonable and realistic proposals. I refer in particular to amendment No. 60 which deals with the hourly rate of pay and amendment No. 65 which deals with double time. I ask the Committee to ensure that they are carried with a good majority.

Mr. Alton: I am happy to support the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and I congratulate him on his impassioned plea to the Committee to accept the amendments which go to the very heart of the Bill. No one who values the right of employees and workers to receive a decent remuneration for their labours can be ambivalent about them.
It is clear that the so-called compromise is nothing but a deregulatory option and was simply second best for those who favour total deregulation. Some people believed that there would be employment protection but the Government must have seen them coming.
Let us consider the Government's record since 1986. They have abolished the wages councils and we all know their attitude to the social chapter, to the rights of workers in general and to trade unions. If one considers the Government's approach only this week to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill which covers every day—not only Sunday—it is clear that they did not intend to provide employment protection in this Bill. They will never ensure a proper rate for the job.
In the debate on schedule 2 in Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said in an intervention that people must have the choice of being allowed to work on Sundays. Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman revealed that that would enable people who could work on a Sunday to earn £16 for their efforts. That is the sort of sum that we are talking about. Double time? Double what? People will be forced to work on Sundays; they will have no choice. They will lose their jobs, or not get jobs in the first place, if they will not work on Sundays, so we are right to be passionate about the amendments, which go to the heart of the Bill.
8 pm
I say to hon. Members who are reconsidering the question, and are looking intelligently at what is on the agenda, as the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has


done, that there will be another opportunity before Third Reading to undo the damage that the Bill seeks to do. We can do that on Report. The hon. Member for Ogmore told us that on an earlier vote this evening the majority was 18. In other words, if eight or nine Members changed their votes on Report we could narrow and restrict the Bill. The same was true of the Government's three-card trick when we first considered the options. The majority then was 19.
The only genuine employment protection will be to restrict the number of shops that can open on Sundays to those that meet the reasonable needs of most people. By and large, that will distinguish between the big hypermarket stores and the small convenience shops that serve our communities. We should support the protection of the jobs in those small corner shops, and the people whose livelihoods are based on their being able to stay in business. That, too, is employment protection.
We should do well to consider the evidence from elsewhere, and unregulated countries provide some evidence of what may happen. During an earlier debate I mentioned a survey in Scotland. One in five of the shops that replied to that survey admitted that they did not give any premium pay whatever for working on a Sunday, and more than one in three did not give a day off in lieu. That is what will happen if we have purely voluntary arrangements here. There will be a continued erosion and continued downward pressure on rates of pay.
In a study of 900 small retailers in Cambridge, Coventry, York, Wales and London surveyed in 1993 by the department of applied economics at Cambridge university, two thirds of the staff working on Sunday received no premium payments whatever. In New Zealand, where legislation almost identical to that in the Bill was recently introduced, the Second Sweating Commission, set up in 1990 to consider the conditions of employment of shop workers, concluded:
The extension of shop trading hours has gone hand in hand with the deterioration of employee rates of pay and conditions. Extensions to shop trading hours strengthen the position of the employers … while … weakening and handicapping the … ability to improve [employees'] wages and conditions".
That is the main reason for the amendment, and the reason why we must build in proper remuneration for people already being required to sacrifice the time that they want to spend at home with their families on Sunday.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) rightly asked for two votes at the end of the debate, because there is another issue associated with the group of amendments—the number of hours that people work. When hon. Members voted for the semi-deregulatory option last year, they believed that people would work for a total of six hours. That is not the case. The time when the shop is being prepared beforehand and cleared up afterwards is an extension of the six hours, so that we already have the eight hours that many in the Shopping Hours Reform Council and others have on their agenda. We know where that is leading—down what the hon. Member for Deptford called the slippery slope.
If the amendments are not accepted, no one in his right mind will be able to carry on supporting the Bill. Anyone who gave it the benefit of the doubt on previous votes must surely change his or her vote on Report, and reduce the number of premises that will be allowed to open on Sunday. I hope that we shall be able to return to that debate in the context of whatever we decide today. We should not rely on a vote on Third Reading. It is all very well for some

to say we shall go back to the 1950 position if we proceed to a Third Reading vote that simply negatives the whole Bill, but most of us do not want to go back to that position. We want proper employee protection and reasonable remuneration, and we want to tighten the categories of shops that can open on Sundays—the very provisions that the hon. Member for Ogmore proposed in his private Member's Bill last year.

Mr. Ken Purchase: I shall speak to amendment No. 60, but I also support the other amendments in the names of my hon. Friends and all that has been said about them. I ask hon. Members to consider a minimum hourly rate because, although there is an amendment on double pay, it has already been said that double nothing is still nothing. There is a minimum level of pay that should apply in any society that regards itself as having any semblance of decency. The suggested formula linked to social security payments would not give a fortune to people who turn out to work on Sunday, but it would provide a reasonable return for a proper day's work, especially for a Sunday-only worker.
The old-fashioned idea of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work was a good one. It is still good, but regrettably people are working for less than £1 an hour these days. Indeed, this morning I heard of someone working for 80p an hour. Hon. Members may ask why on earth people agree to work for so little, but the answer is clear. Hon. Members who take the time to visit their constituencies and move among the people who live there know that there is considerable pressure on people to earn a few more bob to look after themselves and their families. Unemployment appears to be endemic in this society. The idea that people can come to a voluntary agreement about how much they will sell their labour for is nonsense. The truth is that with unemployment so high—notwithstanding the small but welcome decreases, it looks as though it will stay high and we do not know the true level—it is not possible for an individual worker to be in a position of equality with an employer which would enable him or her to negotiate a proper rate of pay.

Ms Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members who trust the market to preserve premium payments, and who therefore oppose statutory premium payments for Sunday working, are being naive about the dynamics of how the market works? Does he also agree that proof positive of the downward pressure on wages is provided by what has happened in former wages council industries since wages councils were abolished? Wages in those industries have plummeted from what were already low enough levels to rates such as he has just mentioned.

Mr. Purchase: My hon. Friend is right. Her experience in the trade union movement has shown her clearly the dynamics of the market as they affect supply of and demand for labour. Unfortunately, thousands of people who work for a pittance on Sundays, and on other days, have no real knowledge or experience of how to maximise their position within the market. Inevitably such people have to fall back on the Houses of Parliament to offer them some kind of protection consistent with decency in a decent society. That is certain.
I turn briefly to the question of those employees who are covered by trade union agreements and who have good representation. The calculation that I offer, which is based


on social security levels, would produce an hourly rate of £3·57. That does not seem much, I agree. However, compared to what is currently paid, at least it makes sense for people to work on Sunday in the belief that they will make a real contribution to, usually, their children.
We have read recently about child poverty in the United Kingdom. I am ashamed as a citizen of the country to learn—I thought that I knew about child poverty—that our children are in such poverty and that we are in the bottom quartile of any league table. I know that those people who will work on Sundays will be mainly women, single parents and married women. The sole purpose will be to give a little extra to those children. I make an impassioned plea on behalf of children because more than ever they need the benefit of a little more coming into the home. If we as parliamentarians cannot make a law that enables people to look after their children under difficult circumstances, we must ask ourselves whether there is any moral basis on which we can gather as parties and agree that there are certain levels of pay below which no one should be paid.
It is regrettable that the Government have already stated that they will resist double-time working. If that proposal is lost, it would be a disgrace. If they fail to recognise the justice of the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), at least we should provide some kind of fallback of a modest, hourly rate of £3·57, which would be indexed to social security payments year on year, or whenever they were changed to take account of increases in the cost of living. The overwhelming fraction of people who work in the retail industry and who are not covered by trade union agreements have a right to look to us to offer some minimum protection.
Of course, to offer protection would fly in the face of everything that the Government have been saying. The Government have said that we should get rid of the wages councils, and the International Labour Organisation conventions. The Government have asked why they matter and have said that everybody is free to sell their labour for what they can. However, only under conditions when markets are clearly in demand for labour can workers assert themselves and claim what is rightfully theirs. Those conditions do not apply.
If we cannot guarantee double-time working as my hon. Friend has suggested, we should have a minimum rate of pay. That would still mean that people would earn less than £30 for eight hours' work on a Sunday. We have decided that Sunday is special and that shops are to open only for six hours. Yet we know that that day will run into eight hours, and if one adds the travelling time of possibly half an hour each way, people will be away from home on a Sunday for nine hours. All that I am proposing is that: they receive a reward of, probably, less than £30.
In the past month, Conservative Members and, I suspect, Opposition Members, too, have paid £30 just for a bit of dinner in one of the restaurants in London. I have seen them. Yet, when it comes to the vote tonight, I wonder whether they will have the decency to recognise that people working on that special day have a right to a decent level of remuneration.
If we do not establish a minimum rate for Sunday work, there will be Sunday-only workers, working for low wages, which are probably less than the rates for which they work the rest of the week. The people who have to go to work for extra money will be taken on as Sunday-only workers

and employers will not be quick to pay the same rate as they pay in the week if there is a reserve army of labour which is ready, forced and with no option but to work for less. Those people will be employed and we will discover scandalous rates of pay.
Soon after, the gaffer would sidle up to them, tell them that they did a good job for him on a Sunday, ask them if they would like to work on a Saturday afternoon and pay them the same rate. Before you can say "Jack Robinson", Dame Janet, you can be absolutely sure that the rates of pay in the retail industry will be pushed down and they shall be not only in the lowest quartile, but right at the bottom of the pay league for people who labour in difficult and, on occasions, dangerous circumstances. In some of the shopping queues in the sales, people need protection.
8.15 pm
I am absolutely serious in saying that it will not be long before the general rate of pay in the retail industry becomes smaller and smaller. Recently, we have witnessed a new phenomenon of large, decent, proper and fair employers buying out trade union representations. Under constraints, the workers may be prepared to take a fistful of dollars or 30 pieces of silver to sell their trade unions rights. In the longer term, with the lack of proper, reasonable and fair employers, we know that they are on to the game and that they intend to come out the winners. By opening on a Sunday, they know that there will be no more sales made, but that the sales will be merely transferred from one day to another.
Our duty is to press the Government as we have never pressed them before and to tell them that they will be accused and be seen as being unfair to people who give up their Sunday for the convenience of those who wish to shop on a Sunday. The people who shop are, in almost every circumstance, better paid than those labouring in the shops. The Government will be seen as unfair and unreasonable in not accepting a minimum rate of pay on Sundays, which is tied to the pathetic levels of social security that we presently endure. I ask the Committee to support the group of amendments.

Ms Jackson: May I say what a pleasure it is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase). I heartily endorse every argument that he made, but I shall speak to the amendment on premium pay for Sunday workers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) referred to the fact that there is no choice or freedom for millions of people over the decision whether they will work on Sunday. We should consider not only that unemployment has risen to intolerable levels, but that one in four of the poorest people in the entire European Community lives in these islands. Concomitant with unemployment are increasing and deeper levels of poverty throughout Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East pointed out, those who suffer most are invariably the most vulnerable—children.
In my constituency I know of women who are desperate to work on Sunday, even though the rates of pay are shamefully low in a country as rich as ours and when we are so close to the 21st century. Those women want to work for two essential reasons. Sunday is probably the only day on which they are free of their domestic responsibilities, their children, to be able to work to bring home that little bit extra which may mean that their


children have, for example, a new pair of shoes. Women work on Sunday not because they have empty hours to fill and want to make a little pin money but for the basic essentials of life with which to provide their children. We know that 1·5 million families in which the breadwinner is in full-time employment are eligible to claim family credit. Thus, low rates of pay are becoming the norm rather than the exception.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), I was not at all in two minds over how to vote on the issue of Sunday trading. I have never believed, and I do not believe now, that a Government who have brought in their train the reduction of workers' rights as exercised by trade unions, who have abolished wages councils and who advertise the British work force to our European competitors as the cheapest in Europe will defend workers and workers' wages.
Many women who work on Sundays give up time with their children and time with their partners. One of the arguments advanced on Second Reading was that Sunday shopping was a leisure activity that families should be able to enjoy together. We should bear in mind the fact that women who work on Sundays to provide the basics for their families have given up that possibility, as have their children and partners. They are being asked to subsidise families whose economic circumstances are much better than their own. That is something for which the House should not legislate. The House should legislate for the entire population who will be affected by the Bill.
The House spoke comparatively clearly on the issue of Sunday trading: it did not want total deregulation and it definitely felt that Sunday should still be regarded as something of a special day. One of the easy ways of preserving that special element is to ensure that those who work in the retail industry receive premium payments—that they get double pay.
There was never any doubt in my mind: I knew that the Government would never allow worker protection and would whip against the possibility of double pay on Sunday. But I know that some Conservative Members were prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and went through the Lobby thinking that they would give the Government the opportunity to show that they were concerned for workers in the transmogrification—if that is the correct word—of Sunday from a special day into a partially special day. Regrettably, none of them is present at the moment, but I would say to them that they can make the difference in the vote tonight. We have an absolute duty to our people to ensure that, in this instance, the Government truly mean what they say. They should not whip for total deregulation and they should allow everyone to exercise his or her conscience in respect of partial deregulation on the understanding that the Bill would afford sufficient protection to those who, for a variety of reasons, have to work on Sundays. I say to those Conservative Members that they should make their Government—for the first time in my experience of this Administration—deliver their promise.

Mrs. Wise: I do not think that the Government are naive in wanting to leave wages, including wages on Sunday, to market forces. They are under no illusions: they know that the process will result in lower and lower wages. They want to make true their statement that low pay is

better than no pay. They are driving social security rates down as near to no pay as they can manage, compelling people to feel that low pay is better. That is absolutely deplorable. It is deplorable from Monday to Saturday and it is deplorable on Sunday. The Minister himself said that Sunday has always been treated differently. Are we not therefore entitled to expect that difference to be followed through, especially in these times when wages are being driven down?
It is deplorable that the number of hon. Members on the Conservative Benches has varied between two and five. Of course, we do not expect them to be interested in this matter. What we expect and what we get are crocodile tears and pseudo-concern for the work force. They say that people want to work on Sunday. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) that the reason why people volunteer to work on Sunday is straightforward and simple: it is not just that they want the money; it is that they need the money. Those of my hon. Friends who have talked about desperation hit the nail on the head. People are desperate to earn the money.
At the moment, for many people, going to work on Sunday is more remunerative than going to work on any other day. I suggest that there are three reasons why many large companies are willing to pay double time or significant premium payments short of double time. The first reason is trade union organisation, which long ago produced a better rate for Sunday—buttressed in the past by the fact that there was a legal minimum rate for Sunday working. Until 1986, the wages councils could deal with, for example, premium pay for unsocial hours, holidays and Sunday work. There has always been some Sunday work in shops and the legal minimum was double time.
The trade unions built on that and secured voluntary agreements with the better employers to pay double time, which outlived the abolition of the power of the wages councils to fix Sunday rates. Double time is not a new idea on the part of the trade unions or of Labour Members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) said, it has a long tradition—it is the norm and the custom and it should be the absolute minimum.
Another reason why some employers still pay double time is that, until now, workers have had other choices and have had to be attracted into working on a Sunday. Until very recently, most shops did not open on a Sunday and workers had other choices. If retailers wanted to attract workers to work on Sunday, they had to do something special, and double time was the answer.
The third reason is that many employers have been trying to induce people to work illegally. Given that they were trying to persuade workers to break the law, it is not surprising that they had to have something substantial on offer to those workers.
Once this Bill and the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill have gone through, at least two of those conditions will no longer apply: more and more shops will be opening and it will be harder for people to find alternatives. There will not need to be inducements for illegal work because Sunday working will be legal.
Until a short time ago, it was hard to persuade people to work on Sunday. I shall tell the House about workers who picketed against Sunday work two years ago—they stood outside their shops with placards protesting against Sunday work. Some of those workers now work on Sunday because conditions have deteriorated in the past two years


and they feel more driven into Sunday work. With this situation of workers being driven into such work, we need legal protection as we have never needed it before.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I agree fully with the line of my hon. Friend's argument about Sunday shop work. Is she aware that if the Government's proposal goes through, the next thing is that deregulated street sweepers, refuse collectors and all those other grades will suffer in exactly the same way? It does not stop at shop work; it goes on. There will be virtually a compulsion for workers in the public cleansing sector to clean shopping centres because they will be so busy on Sundays.

Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend is right. Of course, this goes far beyond those who will be immediately affected by the Bill. That point has been made several times this evening. There is a danger for all workers if Sunday becomes simply another working day, and that is exactly the road down which we are headed.
Some of those employers who are most vociferously in favour of Sunday trading were against it not long ago. Tesco and Sainsburys have not always been in the Sunday trading lobby. What changed the minds of many large retailers was the chill wind of competition. Some retailers were willing to break the law. They stole a march on those who traded legally, made a killing and forced retailers who wanted to trade legally into the same shabby route of illegal trading. That is what happened. Competition has been an engine for more and more illegal trading. That is exactly what will happen with wage rates.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she is going rather wide of the group of amendments relating to a limitation on hours and rates of pay.

Mrs. Wise: I am sorry if that is how it seemed, Dame Janet. I was simply explaining the force of competition. The force of competition will be felt, especially with regard to wage rates.
Many of the firms which now negotiate with trade unions, and which seek to be better and fairer employers, will find that unless they as well as their workers are buttressed by legal provision, they will be driven even against their will to cut wages and make it harder to enter into reasonable voluntary agreements. Better employers need worker protection to be written into the Bill, especially with regard to wage rates, or they will suffer the pressure of competition and their workers will suffer the consequences.
Those who say that they want to work because they need the money and they are getting double time, and think that this will continue indefinitely, will find that they have been living in a fool's paradise because of the relentless driving down of wages as a result of the relentless chill wind of competition. It is imperative for hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, who have regard for the needs of workers and better employers to be protected against unfair competition, to vote for double time and protection against excessive hours being worked on Sundays. Without such protection, we will be on a slippery slope. Many workers who now say that they want to work will in

the not-too-distant future say to hon. Members, "How could you let this happen?" They will have undercut their conditions and those of shopworkers in general.

Mr. Donald Anderson: In a series of powerful speeches, my hon. Friends have shown that the amendments relating to hours of work and premium payments should be at the heart of the Bill. They relate to dilution, the wretched effect on other sectors of workers and the increasing pressure on families. In spite of that, it is saddening but perhaps not surprising that throughout this debate we have heard from only three Tory Members. That shows how little significance the Government attach to the provisions relating to the protection of vulnerable sections of our society.
From the start, many of us argued that, essentially, there were not three options but two options before the House—deregulation and the attempt at an orderly regulation of what happens on Sunday. Effectively, the Shopping Hours Reform Council option was the most that those who truly wanted total deregulation could get at that time. They realised that there would be slippage. If we allowed six hours, why not allow seven or eight hours? That was the most that they would get.
Is not removal of all protection on wages wholly consistent with the philosophy of deregulation? It is sad that a number of my hon. Friends naively placed faith in the Government and were prepared to give them the benefit of their judgment. The Government have now proved that it was highly misplaced faith. They do not want to include forms of protection for workers. Indeed, the way in which they are reacting to the amendment suggests that they had a hidden agenda from the start: to remove all premium payments. The Bill is a means to do that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, perhaps about 11 per cent. of the work force work on Sunday at present, but the more people who work on Sunday, the more who will be forced to work in ancillary trades and the more Sunday will become just like any other day. If Sunday becomes just like any other day, as the Government would like, with all the attendant social disadvantages that we foresee, what possible argument can there be for having premium payments on that day? This is what the Government want; it is consistent with the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. Indeed, if that Bill had been before the House earlier, that would have fundamentally altered the basis on which this Bill has been debated. Why would we need freedom to shop on Sunday if there were freedom to shop every hour of the day on the other six days?
There will be slippage. That is why we say that there must be statutory protection as set out in the amendment. Voluntary protection is good only at the time that it is entered into. It is absolutely clear that the army of distressed people—Tesco workers and others—who were dragooned by their employers to lobby us during earlier debates were put up to that by their employers. We know that they had draft letters to send to us. Those same shop troops—the poor, bloody infantry of Tesco—will be dropped as soon as it suits Tesco to do so. Indeed, any premium payments that are now paid will be dropped when it is convenient for employers to do so. They were useful at the time, and when they are no longer useful and have served their purpose, they will be dropped.
I promised the Whips that I would be brief, so I shall end on this note. For the Government, there is a basic


question. Do they acknowledge in any way that Sunday should be different? The workers will have to give up their family life and leisure pursuits on a Sunday, and will have the hassle of going into work. The travelling time and so on will mean that it will be not just for six hours, but for much more. Do the Government accept that those workers should in some way be compensated, because Sunday is special?
We cannot rely on the employers to compensate workers. We know jolly well that there will be dilution as soon as it becomes practicable. The only way to compensate and protect those workers is by statute. That is why I, and my hon. Friends, support the amendment.

Mr. Bayley: I regret that the House voted at Second Reading to give the public the right to shop in any shop whose owners wished it to open for a six-hour period on Sunday. The House voted to allow the big chain stores to obtain a greater market share and to make bigger profits, at the expense of smaller businesses, some of which will go out of business if the Bill is passed.
I shall speak briefly on the matter. This amendment is, in fact, the crunch. The Commitee must decide whether to balance the right of big firms to make bigger profits against the right for their workers to get an enhanced payment on the day when the firms are making those bigger profits. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has talked about "back to basics", and I have not been surprised at the number of people who, in letters to me, used that phrase in relation to Sunday trading.
For example, my constituent Mr. Blakeborough wrote:
The PM talks about 'back to basics'. For many people like myself Sunday is very real 'basic"; it is God's day, and by the way Tories MPs voted they have shown that materialism is all.
I hope that those Conservatives who have put their faith in that slogan will vote on a "back to basics" basis this evening. That would make sure that higher profits for the big chain stores are balanced by a decent enhanced rate of pay for shopworkers who work on Sunday.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) said that 50 years ago when he worked on the railways and in retailing he got double pay for working on Sundays. Are we saying that we are now abandoning the basic double pay rate for Sundays that applied 50 years ago? If the Government want shops to open on Sunday—clearly they do—the Committee must consider at what cost that will be. If at the end of the 20th century it is sweated labour of the work force, the cost will be too high.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I shall start by referring to amendment No. 50, which would keep Sunday working to the equivalent of a normal eight-hour day. I doubt whether the large stores, which are confined to six hours opening by the Bill, would want to employ staff on Sunday for anywhere near as long as eight hours, whatever the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) might think. It would not be particularly good business to keep workers in a shop when it was not open and trading.
The difficulty with the amendments is how they apply to small shops. The hours of small shops are unrestricted under all of the choices that have been put before the House. A small shop could reasonably decide to open from 9 am to 6 pm. That would be nine hours, and the amendment would cut across any such decision and result in the shop having the trouble and expense of having to

shut earlier than it wished. The shop would otherwise have to employ another Sunday worker for the latter part of day, and probably for a length of time for which nobody would be interested in working.
The principal reason why I must say no to the amendment is that employers and employees in retailing, as in virtually every other occupation, should be and are free to decide between them what arrangements they enter into. Having entered into them, they should keep them. The schedule creates a massive exception to the rule, so that any employee who also works on a weekday for the same employer will have the enormous additional leverage over the terms of his Sunday work by being able to opt out. The Sunday-only worker can leave the job only if he does not like the terms but, equally, they are terms that he found acceptable when he took the job.
That is the same as in every other industry. Why should hours be limited in that way just for shop work? Why should hours be restricted in shops when they are not in factories, in the leisure industry and in catering? Indeed, hours are only limited across the board when safety is the issue.
I suspect that there will be as many Sunday workers who regret the shortness of working time available in large shops as there are those who find that the working day in small shops is too long. I do not believe that Opposition Members have made out a case for a restriction on working hours in the retail trade that does not exist elsewhere.
8.45 pm
At the heart of the group of amendments is the fact that it would bring double pay for Sunday work. Hon. Members have spoken passionately in support of double time, and they will have been expecting that I would not be able to give them encouragement on the amendments. We are at one on the general principle that shopworkers should be able to choose whether to work on Sunday. Again, I am sure that the freedom of choice—this is directly relevant to pay—will give Sunday workers an effective lever in their negotiations with employers about their rates of pay for Sunday work.
It would not be right for the law to step in and set those rates that the amendments would. It is not the Government's job to do that. Having established that employees have the freedom to choose whether to work on Sunday, it is up to employers and employees to make their own terms.

Mr. Purchase: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lloyd: No, I will not because I know that the Committee wants to come to a decision. I am sorry, because I would love to debate with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will understand.
Employees and employers must make their own terms depending on individual businesses. The situation may vary sharply. Some large and profitable retailers will be able to afford double time pay. They pay it now, and they will go on doing so. Often, however, smaller shops will not be able to do so. The amendments would simply have the effect of driving them out of business or preventing them from opening on Sundays. Either way, there would be fewer jobs and, once again, wage fixing would have proven to be the enemy of employment. It would inevitably reduce the range and quality of retail services that are available to the public.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lloyd: I am sorry, but I do not think that I can give way. The Committee wants to reach a conclusion.
For the reasons that I have given, I must ask the Committee to reject all the amendments in the group.

Ms Ruddock: The Minister just asked why hours should be limited in shops when they are not elsewhere. It is the Opposition's view that hours should be limited and that workers should not have to work unsocial and unlimited hours, especially for poverty wages. For that reason, we shall seek to return to the issue at a later stage. With the leave of the House, I shall not put amendment No. 50 and its group to the vote. It is my understanding that it will be possible after we have moved the next group of amendments for us to have a separate Division on amendment No. 65.
On amendment No. 65, if the Government's view was that some small shops would have a problem with paying double-time payments, Ministers could have tabled an amendment to cover that. I remind the Minister, however, that those small shops are frequently paying pitiable amounts in wages. If the worker is getting but £1 an hour for six or eight hours on Sunday, double that amount is still a small amount for the employer to pay. It is essential, however, for the employee to have that double payment. I remind the Minister that, from all our experience., it is premium paying that creates the volunteers. If the voluntary principle in the Bill is to be meaningful, it needs to be coupled with double-time payments.
The Minister has failed completely to recognise that linkage. For that reason, we shall seek to have a separate vote on this important issue after discussing the next group of amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Barron: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 18, line 45, at end insert—
'or refused or proposed to refuse to give an opting-in notice, or having given such a notice refused or proposed to refuse to agree to do shop work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday, as required under paragraph 3(1)(b) above'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 61, in page 18, line 49, at end insert—
'(5) In determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether the dismissal of a shop worker was fair or unfair, it shall be for the employer to show that the reason (or, if there was more than one the principal reason) for the dismissal was not a reason falling within sub-paragaraph (1) or (3) above.'.
No. 62, in page 19, line 23, at end insert—
'(4) In determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether the dismissal of a shop worker was fair or unfair, it shall be for the employer to show that the reason (or, if there was more than one the principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was not a reason falling within sub-paragaraph (1) or (3) above.'.
No. 54, in page 19, line 43, at end insert—
'or refused or proposed to refuse to give an option-in-notice, or having given such a notice refused or proposed to refuse to agree to do shop work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday, as required under paragraph 3(1)(b) above'.
No. 59, page 22, line 27, at end insert—

'Enforcement

20.—(1) An employee who presents a complaint of unfair dismissal alleging that the dismissal is unfair by virtue of paragraphs 7 or 8 above may apply to the industrial tribunal for interim relief.

(2) The tribunal shall not entertain an application for interim relief unless it is presented to the tribunal before the end of seven days immediately following the effective date of termination (whether before, on or after that date).

21.—(1) An industrial tribunal shall determine an application for interim relief as soon as practicable after receiving the application.

(2) The tribunal shall give to the employer, not later than seven days before the hearing, a copy of the application, together with notice of the date, time and place of hearing.

(3) The tribunal shall not exercise any power it has of postponing the hearing of an application for interim relief except where it is satisfied that special circumstances exist which justify it in doing so.

22.—(1) If on hearing an application for interim relief it appears to the tribunal that it is likely that on determining the complaint to which the application relates that it will find that, by virtue of paragraph 7 or 8 above, the complainant has been unfairly dismissed, the following provisions apply.

(2) The tribunal shall announce its findings and explain to both parties (if present) what powers the tribunal may exercise on the application and in what circumstances it will exercise them, and shall ask the employer (if present) whether he is willing, pending the determination or settlement of the complaint—

(a) to reinstate the employee, that is to say, to treat him in all respects as if he had not been dismissed, or
(b) if not, to re-engage him in another job on terms and conditions not less favourable than those which would have been applicable to him if he had not been dismissed.

(3) For this purpose "terms and conditions not less favourable than those which would have been applicable to him if he had not been dismissed" means as regards seniority, pension rights and other similar rights that the period prior to the dismissal shall be regarded as continuous with his employment following the dismissal.

(4) If the employer states that he is willing to reinstate the employee, the tribunal shall make an order to that effect.

(5) If the employer states that he is willing to re-engage the employee in another job, and specifies the terms and conditions on which he is willing to do so, the tribunal shall ask the employee whether he is willing to accept the job on those terms and conditions; and
(a) if the employee is willing to accept the job on those terms and conditions, the tribunal shall make an order to that effect, and
(b) if he is not, then, if the tribunal is of the opinion that the refusal is reasonable, the tribunal shall make an order for the continuation of his contract of employment, and otherwise the tribunal shall make no order.

(6) If on the hearing of an application for interim relief the employer fails to attend before the tribunal, or states that he is unwilling either to reinstate the employee or re-engage him as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), the tribunal shall make an order for the continuation of the employee's contract of employment.

23.—(1) An order for the continuation of a contract of employment is an order that the contract of employment continue in force—
(a) for the purposes of pay or any other benefit derived from the employment, seniority, pension rights and other similar matters, and
(b) for the purpose of determining for any purpose the period for which the employee has been continuously employed,

from the date of its termination (whether before or after the making of the order) until the determination or settlement of the complaint.

(2) Where the tribunal makes such an order it shall specify in the order the amount which is to be paid by the employer to the employee by way of pay in respect of each normal pay period, or part of any such period, falling between the date of dismissal and the determination or settlement of the complaint.

(3) Subject as follows, the amount so specified shall be that which the employee could reasonably have been expected to earn during that period, or part, and shall be paid—
(a) in the case of payment for any such period falling wholly or partly after the making of the order, on the normal pay day for that period, and
(b) in the case of a payment for any past period, within such time as may be specified in the order.

(4) If an amount is payable in respect of part of a normal pay period, the amount shall be calculated by reference to the whole period and reduced proportionately.

(5) Any payment made to an employee by an employer under his contract of employment, or by way of damages for breach of that contract, in respect of a normal pay period or part of any such period shall go towards discharging the employer's liability in respect of that period under sub-paragraph (2), and conversely any payment under that sub-paragraph in respect of a period shall go towards discharging any liability of the employer under, or in respect of the breach of, the contract of employment in respect of that period.

(6) If an employee, on or after being dismissed by his employer, receives a lump sum which, or part of which, is in lieu of wages but is not referrable to any normal pay period, the tribunal shall take the payment into account in determining the amount of pay to be payable in pursuance of any such order.

(7) For the purposes of this paragraph the amount which an employee could reasonably have been expected to earn, his normal pay period and the normal pay day for each such period shall be determined as if he had not been dismissed.

24.—(1) If on the application of an employee an industrial tribunal is satisfied that the employer has not complied with the terms of an order for the reinstatement or re-engagement of the employee, the tribunal shall-
(a) make an order for the continuation of the employee's contract of employment, and
(b) order the employer to pay the employee such compensation as the tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances having regard-
(i) to the infringement of the employee's right to to be reinstated or re-engaged in pursuance of the order, and
(ii) to any loss suffered by the employee in consequence of the non-compliance.

(2) Paragraph 23 applies to an order under sub-paragraph (1)(a) as in relation to an order under paragraph 22.

(3) If on the application of an employee an industrial tribunal is satisfied that the employer has not complied with the terms of an order for the continuation of a contract of employment, the following provisions apply.

(4) If the non-compliance consists of a failure to pay an amount of pay specified in the order, the tribunal shall determine the amount owed by the employer on the date of the determination.

25.—Where a dismissal is unfair by virtue of paragraph 7 or 8 above, the amount of the basic award of compensation shall be not less that £2,700.

26.—(1) Where an industrial tribunal makes an award of compensation for unfair dismissal in a case where the dismissal is unfair by virtue of paragraphs 7 or 8 above then, unless
(a) the complainant does not request the tribunal to make an order for reinstatement or re-engagement, or
(b) the case falls within section 73(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (cases where employer takes requisite steps to renew employment or re-engage employee),

the award shall include a special award calculated in accordance with paragraph 27 below.

(2) Section 71(2)(b) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (additional award of compensation in case of failure to comply with an order for reinstatement or re-engagement) does not apply in a case where the dismissal is unfair by virtue of paragraphs 7 or 8 above.

27.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the amount of the special award shall be one week's pay multiplied by 104, or £13,400, whichever is the greater, but shall not exceed £26,800.

(2) Where the award of compensation is made under section 71(2)(a) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (compensation where employee not reinstated or re-engaged in accordance with order) then, unless the employer satisfies the tribunal that it was not practicable to comply with the order for reinstatement or re-engagement, the amount of the special award shall be increased to one week's pay multiplied by 156, or £20,100, whichever is the greater.

(3) Where the employer has engaged another worker who has agreed to do work on Sunday, the tribunal shall not take that fact into account in determining practicability nor shall the tribunal take into account the employee's refusal to work on Sunday.

(4) Where the employer has engaged a permanent replacement for the complainant, the tribunal shall not take that fact into account in determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) whether it was practicable to comply with an order for reinstatement or re-engagement unless the employer shows that it was not practicable for him to arrange for the complainant's work to be done without engaging a permanent replacement.'.

Mr. Barron: As the Committee wants to come to a conclusion quickly on the subject of the previous debate, I shall be brief.
The Minister will be well aware by now that amendment No. 52 is a probing amendment. We wish to find out exactly how the protection of people who refuse to work on Sundays will be policed under the schedule, particularly under paragraph 7. Paragraph 7(3) clearly states that workers are protected from unfair dismissal
if the reason for it … was that the shop worker gave, or proposed to give, an opting-out notice to the employer.
In the amendment we also want to insert
or refused or proposed to refuse to give an opting-in notice".
Amendment No. 61 proposes to insert into the policing arrangements in paragraph 7 the provisions in the Employment Act 1978 under which an employer has to prove that an employee was not unfairly dismissed as opposed to an employee having to prove that he was unfairly dismissed. The Minister may think that the schedule places the burden of proof on one group in a dispute under the Sunday Trading Bill as opposed to another—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. There are far too many private conversations going on. They are making it difficult for me to hear the hon. Gentleman, and that I wish to do.

Mr. Barron: I hope that the Minister understands why we tabled amendment No. 61 and that he will respond. Is the test within the policing provisions of the Sunday Trading Bill that the employer—as in normal circumstances—has to prove that the employee has not been unfairly dismissed rather than the employee proving that he has been unfairly dismissed?

Mr. Peter Lloyd: As I said, the probe—if I had time to respond to it—would be satisfied in that the matters that worry those who tabled the amendment are taken care of by the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman particularly referred me to amendment No. 61. I understand his worry. I know that the Deakin Ewing report asserts that the burden will fall on the employee to prove that he has been dismissed. Paragraph 7 of schedule 4 provides protection by means of a cross-reference to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which requires the employee to show that he has been dismissed. It is then for the employer to show the cause and that he acted reasonably in making it a ground for dismissal. That should satisfy the hon. Gentleman. If he would like, I will write to him on the matter so that he can discuss my reply with his hon. Friends well before Report stage and take counsel on whether to pursue the matter further.

Mr. Barron: In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 65, in page 19, line 29, at end insert—

'Right to double-time payments

9A.—(1) A shop worker working on a Sunday shall be remunerated at twice the hourly rate applicable on a weekday to that job.

(2) It shall be the duty of the employer of a shop worker working on a Sunday to give him a written statement of the hourly rate applicable for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above and of how that rate has been determined.

(3) A complaint by a shop worker that he has not been remunerated as required by sub-paragraph (1) above, that he has not been given any statement required by sub-paragraph (2) above or that he is aggrieved by anything in or by any omission from such a statement may be presented to an industrial tribunal.

(4) An individual tribunal shall not consider a complaint under sub-paragraph (3) above unless it is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of three months beginning when the act complained of was done.

(5) Where an industrial tribunal finds that a complaint presented to it under sub-paragraph (3) above is well founded the tribunal shall make such of the following as it considers just and equitable—
(a) an order declaring the rights of the complainant and the respondent in relation to the act to which the complaint relates, and
(b) an order requiring the respondent to pay to the complainant compensation not exceeding the limit for the time being imposed by section 75 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.'.—[Ms. Ruddock]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 269, Noes 299.

Division No. 115]
[8.54 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clelland, David


Ainger, Nick
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coffey, Ann


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Alton, David
Connarty, Michael


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Armstrong, Hilary
Corbett, Robin


Austin-Walker, John
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barnes, Harry
Corston, Ms Jean


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Cox, Tom


Bayley, Hugh
Cryer, Bob


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cummings, John


Beggs, Roy
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Stuart
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dalyell, Tam


Benton, Joe
Darling, Alistair


Bermingham, Gerald
Davidson, Ian


Berry, Dr. Roger
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Betts, Clive
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blair, Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Blunkett, David
Denham, John


Boateng, Paul
Dewar, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Dixon, Don


Bradley, Keith
Dobson, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Donohoe, Brian H.


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dowd, Jim


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Burden, Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Byers, Stephen
Eagle, Ms Angela


Caborn, Richard
Eastham, Ken


Callaghan, Jim
Enright, Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Canavan, Dennis
Fatchett, Derek


Cann, Jamie
Faulds, Andrew


Chisholm, Malcolm
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Clapham, Michael
Fisher, Mark


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Flynn, Paul


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)





Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Fraser, John
Maginnis, Ken


Fyfe, Maria
Mahon, Alice


Galloway, George
Mandelson, Peter


Gapes, Mike
Marek, Dr John


Garrett, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gerrard, Neil
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Martlew, Eric


Godsiff, Roger
Meacher, Michael


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meale, Alan


Gordon, Mildred
Michael, Alun


Graham, Thomas
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Milburn, Alan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Miller, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gunnell, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hain, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Mike
Morgan, Rhodri


Hanson, David
Morley, Elliot


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Heppell, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mudie, George


Hinchliffe, David
Mullin, Chris


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Paul



Home Robertson, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Hara, Edward


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Olner, William


Hoyle, Doug
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Patchett, Terry


Hutton, John
Pendry, Tom


Illsley, Eric
Pickthall, Colin


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L.


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prescott, John


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Randall, Stuart


Jowell, Tessa
Raynsford, Nick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Redmond, Martin


Keen, Alan
Reid, Dr John


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Rendel, David


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Khabra, Piara S.
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rogers, Allan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Rooker, Jeff


Leighton, Ron
Rooney, Terry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terry
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Litherland, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Livingstone, Ken
Ruddock, Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Loyden, Eddie
Sheerman, Barry


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAllion, John
Short, Clare


McAvoy, Thomas
Simpson, Alan


McCartney, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McKelvey, William
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McLeish, Henry
Soley, Clive


Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


McMaster, Gordon
Spellar, John


McNamara, Kevin
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McWilliam, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Madden, Max
Stevenson, George






Stott, Roger
Wicks, Malcolm


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Straw, Jack
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Fit Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Winnick, David


Tipping, Paddy
Wise, Audrey


Tyler, Paul
Wray, Jimmy


Vaz, Keith
Wright, Dr Tony


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold



Walley, Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Dennis Turner.


Wareing, Robert N



Watson, Mike





NOES



Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Couchman, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Cran, James


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Amess, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arbuthnot, James
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Devlin, Tim


Ashby, David
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert
Dicks, Terry


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dover, Den


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Duncan, Alan


Baldry, Tony
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bates, Michael
Dykes, Hugh


Batiste, Spencer
Elletson, Harold


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evennett, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Faber, David


Booth, Hartley
Fabricant, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowden, Andrew
Fishburn, Dudley


Bowis, John
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brandreth, Gyles

Forth, Eric


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bright, Graham
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
French, Douglas


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fry, Sir Peter


Budgen, Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Burns, Simon
Gallie, Phil


Burt, Alistair
Gardiner, Sir George


Butcher, John
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Butler, Peter
Garnier, Edward


Butterfill, John
Gill, Christopher


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gillan, Cheryl


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carttiss, Michael
Gorst, John


Cash, William
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Chapman, Sydney
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Churchill, Mr
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clappison, James
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hague, William


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Coe, Sebastian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Colvin, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Congdon, David
Hanley, Jeremy


Conway, Derek
Hannam, Sir John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Harris, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Haselhurst, Alan





Hawkins, Nick
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawksley, Warren
Ottaway, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hendry, Charles
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hicks, Robert
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jessel, Toby
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkwood, Archy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Roger


Knox, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Soames, Nicholas


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Speed, Sir Keith


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spink, Dr Robert


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spring, Richard


Lidington, David
Sproat, Iain


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


MacKay, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Madel, Sir David
Sykes, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Merchant, Piers
Tracey, Richard


Mills, Iain
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trend, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Trotter, Neville


Moate, Sir Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Monro, Sir Hector
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Walden, George


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wallace, James


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Ward, John


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waterson, Nigel






Watts, John
Wood, Timothy


Whitney, Ray
Yeo, Tim


Whittingdale, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Widdecombe, Ann



Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Willetts, David
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and Mr. Michael Brown.


Wilshire, David



Wolfson, Mark

Question accordingly negatived.

Ms Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 21, leave out lines 15 to 29 and insert—

'13—(1) Where under the contract of employment of a shop worker who is either a protected shop worker or an opted-out shop worker—
(a) the employer is, or may be, required to provide him with shop work for a specified number of hours each week,
(b) the shop worker has done shop work on Sunday (whether before or after the commencement date), and
(c) the shop worker gives the employer written notice, signed and dated by the shop worker to the effect that this paragraph is to apply,

the employer shall be under a duty as far as reasonably practicable to provide him with shop work on weekdays in excess of the hours normally so worked by the shop worker on weekdays before he ceased to do shop work on Sundays to the extent that his earnings from the shop work so provided are equivalent to the earnings of the shop worker from working on Sunday on the last occasion when he so worked.

(2) Any failure of the employer to offer alternative hours of work or to remunerate the shop worker as required by sub-paragraph (1) above shall be regarded for the purposes of paragraph 10 above as a detriment.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take amendment No. 39, in page 21, line 52, at end insert—

Right to Additional Hours

'15a. Where an employer has available alternative work, an employee who has regularly worked on Sunday and subsequently gives notice of opting out has the right to be offered additional weekday hours.'.

Ms Ruddock: In putting these matters before the Committee, we are concerned specifically about endeavouring to maintain the vital voluntary principle that is attached to Sunday working, despite the way in which Conservative Members have just voted, because we believe that this principle is important and that premium payment is inherent in it. We seek, through the amendment, to ensure that where established employees who have been working on a Sunday and who, in many cases, have been in receipt of a premium payment seek to forgo Sunday work, they should not suffer any detriment in making that choice.
We believe that it is impossible freely to choose to give up Sunday working if, as a consequence, an employee will lose a substantial amount of income. We believe that, in many cases, an employer will have scope to enable the worker to make up his or her hours on other days of the week.
Threats to the voluntary principle result not just from employer pressure and employee intimidation—although we are all familiar with both and know that they are real and, sadly, could be widespread—but from sheer economic compulsion. More than three quarters of shopworkers—especially part-time employees—are women, and they are among the lowest-paid workers in the country. It is the pressure to gain some income that drives many people to work on Sunday.
If retail employees doing additional work on Sunday seek to give up that work, it is essential that the voluntary principle be underpinned through recognition of the need of the workers to maintain a certain standard of living.

Mr. Pike: I know of people who work voluntarily on Sunday but have been told clearly that, as the work pattern in their trade now involves a seven-day week, they will not have a full week's work if they do not work on Sunday. I assume that that is the type of vision that my hon. Friend is getting at in the amendment.

Ms Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes an important point.
If a worker has been engaged and is working on a Sunday, that worker is obviously benefiting from wages for Sundays, whether double or plain-time. If the voluntary principle enshrined in the Bill is to be meaningful, it is obvious to us that many workers will not feel able voluntarily to opt out of Sunday working unless they can find some other means of getting the additional income. Many employers will have the scope to offer workers alternative hours during weekdays.
Most people who have been working on Sundays will be valued workers. The amendment seeks to persuade employers that they deserve such consideration. We should, therefore, adopt the amendment so that they can have a real choice as to whether to work on Sundays.
In an earlier debate, the Minister suggested that there was no real comparison between the mechanism for opting in or out and a worker giving up his or her work. He said that opting, in or out of Sunday working was a much smaller decision. I do not wholly agree with him because, for most Sunday workers, opting out will be a major decision. Even with the voluntary principle, most shopworkers will not easily opt out, for the reason that we have expressed again and again in this debate—they are there for the money. That is why they will work and will not easily give up that work.
If employees are not to be put in the position where they have no choice, they must be able to seek alternative hours. That is the thrust of the amendments. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to them.

Mr. Pike: This is an important issue concerning the protection of workers' rights. I spoke at length on this issue in a previous debate on the Bill on the Floor of the House.
We all know that there are volunteers and volunteers. When I did my national service, on the first day after we reported at the Royal Marines training centre in Lympstone we were asked to step forward as volunteers. We all did so because we felt that we had to. Workers feel the same way.
Many workers will volunteer to work on Sundays because they desperately need the money and know that they will not be employed if they do not take that option. Some workers have come to me saying that, although they originally chose to work on a Sunday as a part of their working pattern, they no longer wished to do so but had been clearly told by their employers that they could not be provided with a full working week within the other six days without doing a number of hours on a Sunday. They were told that, unless they wished to reduce their working week—they were receiving premium payments, so there was no argument about that being paid—they could not change to working on a different day because the working pattern was already established for those days. At that stage, Sunday working no longer remains voluntary but becomes compulsory. The only way that employees can get out of it is to opt out and reduce the number of hours that they work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) was right to move the amendment, because it seeks to protect people who want to work Sundays now but may want to change in future. They want genuine protection for their working hours and earnings. We all know that, unless such assurance, as in the amendment, is written in the Bill, it will be meaningless and workers will not get the protection to which I—like many others—believe they are entitled.

Mr. Alton: I have some sympathy with the amendment. If it were passed in some form, perhaps not as it is written on the amendment paper, it would protect workers who opt not to work on Sundays. If the spirit of the amendment were accepted, it would mean that they could substitute another day instead and shift their working hours around.
The problem is in amendment No. 55, which contains the words
as far as reasonably practicable
That clearly is a let-out measure. I should be interested to hear the Minister's view. I question how that could be enforced in law. It would allow an employer always to argue that it is not reasonably practicable for him to make such arrangements. Even if the amendment were accepted, it would not achieve what the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) have argued for.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that, if the amendment does not achieve its objectives, he will at least accept the arguments that are being put tonight and look again at the principle, either on Report or in another place.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is an optimist. I am afraid that, although I agree with some of his comments, I will not be able to give any encouragement that a similar amendment could meet those objections or that it would be right to do so. The amendments would ensure that shopworkers who have worked on Sundays but cease to do so are provided with additional weekday work to compensate them for the earnings that they would have made on Sunday or, in the case of amendment No. 39, if I follow it, for just the additional hours.
I do not see how that could be done without being unfair to employees who worked only on weekdays but who would also like to work some extra hours during the week. They would find ex-Sunday workers getting preference for any extra hours going and, if amendment No. 55 had been carried, getting those hours at double time, too. There would be no justice in ex-Sunday workers getting priority over weekday workers. I believe that it would be unfair to employers as well, who would have to pay for the extra hours worked during the week and employ somebody else to do the Sunday work that had been vacated. That would be a very large extra burden, pushing up costs sharply and reducing efficiency.
The hon. Members who put their names to amendment No. 55 have, like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), at least partly recognised how unreasonable it is.

Ms Ruddock: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Lady wants to tell me again that the amendment is reasonable.

Ms Ruddock: The Minister correctly anticipates what I am about to say. We introduced reasonableness to the amendment because we have recognised some of the things that he is saying. In promoting the amendment, we seek to encourage best practice among employers. We believe that there is scope for that and that many employers might voluntarily make such arrangements, recognising the worth of their workers. We are attempting to give a little strength to that idea.

Mr. Lloyd: Like the hon. Lady, I am always in favour of best practice. It is a question of what we should write into the law.
There is another difficulty, however, and here I return to what was said by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. What does "reasonably practicable" mean? The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) has formed an idea that is very satisfactory in terms of guidance and codes of practice, but it is not necessarily satisfactory in terms of law. It is hard for an employer to know what is "reasonably practicable" in legal terms. That would be extremely difficult for an employee—who would have to take the matter to an industrial tribunal—to assess and it would be impossible for the tribunal to judge, unless it engaged in a management audit of a shop's manning arrangements and adjudicated accordingly.
I believe that, if amendment No. 55 is passed, no one will know where he or she is. People will not know whether a shop is acting within the law if it fails to find extra weekday hours for ex-Sunday workers. If amendment No. 39 is passed, an unfair and, in some cases, insupportable burden will be placed on employers, to the especial detriment of weekday workers who would like extra hours during the week.

Mr. Pike: I have often heard Ministers defend the words "reasonably practicable" in other contexts. It seems strange that the Minister of State is not prepared to accept that wording now.
Does the Minister not think it reasonable for an employee who now accepts Sunday working as a voluntary part of his working week to be given a first option to return to a working week involving the other six days if his circumstances change at some future date? Would not that constitute a fair extension of the voluntary principle involved in the legislation?

Mr. Lloyd: First, I am in favour of the use of the phrase "reasonably practicable" in legislation when it is "reasonably practicable" to use it. In these circumstances, I do not consider it practicable. Secondly, the question for most shopworkers who work full time during the week is whether, now that it is lawful to work on Sundays, they will do additional work on that day. I accept that the circumstances cited by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) could arise, but, under schedule 4, they would arise only if an individual shopworker chose to accept terms of that nature. An existing shopworker will start from scratch—that is, whatever was the agreement made on day one; a new worker will have to opt into not just the idea of Sunday work but the particular arrangements proposed by the employer.

Mr. Pike: Is the Minister saying that the existing shopworker has that option only once and cannot reverse his choice later?

Mr. Lloyd: Like anyone else, he will have the choice of reversing on three months' notice. Indeed, if the existing shopworker has not formally opted into Sunday work, he can continue to work on Sundays and stop at any time without notice. It is a complicated point but, if the hon. Gentleman reads the schedule carefully, he will find that the protections extend further than he seems to think.
The right to opt out is there for Sunday workers to use if their consciences or circumstances change. Employers should be under no obligation to make up the time that employees have freely chosen to give up. Of course, many employers will want, if they can, to find extra weekday time for valued Sunday workers who can no longer continue to work on Sundays. The larger employers will be better placed in that regard. I applaud such efforts and hope that they will be widespread, but I do not think it right to compel all employers to do the same in all circumstances. Although I see much merit in such action, I can envisage the legal difficulties correctly identified by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill.

Ms Ruddock: The Minister has completely missed the point. He says that a shopworker can freely choose to give up Sunday working. Our point is that many shopworkers may find themselves with critical problems that necessitate their giving up Sunday working, perhaps for the sake of family obligations. They may not be able to do so, however, for economic reasons. We therefore believe it right that when a worker has been working Sundays and is forced by circumstances to try to opt out, he should be able to go to his employer with a reasonable request to be given alternative weekday hours.
The Minister suggests that that is unfair to weekday workers, who may themselves want additional hours. We, however, are talking about workers who already have the hours and are possibly receiving premium payments for them. They may have to lose income, and that is why we propose the substitution of other hours. It is not an unfair principle: these people may incur financial loss—hence the reason for the amendment.
Arbitrary changes in hours of work, duties and even places of work are now commonplace. The employers certainly have the upper hand. They have even instituted zero-hours contracts, and various forms of casual and unprotected work are increasingly prevalent. We have heard plenty of testimony to that in these debates.
This was but a small attempt to give shopworkers a degree of control over their hours of work and how they are arranged. It was an attempt to redress the balance, which my colleagues and I believe has been tilting increasingly in favour of the employers. I regret the fact that the Minister has been unable to make a more positive response, but I hope that the employers will take note of what he has said about best practice and how it might be encouraged. That is very little for shopworkers to hope for, but it is clearly all they are going to get from the Government.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 22, line 12, leave out from `employment)' to 'For' in line 18 and insert
'in subsection (3) (keeping of records)'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 58.

Mr. Lloyd: These are technical amendments, reflecting the outcome of the vote on the choices held on the first day

of the Committee of the whole House, before Christmas. They ensure that appropriate references in the Shops Act 1950 refer to the Bill rather than to the parts of that Act that this Bill repeals.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 58, in page 22, leave out line 21.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Schedule 4 agreed to.

New clause 2

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF SUNDAY-ONLY WORKERS

'(1) Where a Sunday-only worker is employed on work substantially the same as work performed on a weekday by a shop worker in the same employment, if any term or condition of the contract of employment of the Sunday-only worker is or becomes less favourable than it would be if the worker was no, a Sunday-only worker, the relevant term or condition shall be treated as so modified as to be not less favourable.

(2) A complaint by a Sunday-only worker that his contract of employment had not been treated by his employer as modified, as required by subsection (1) above may be presented to an industrial tribunal.

(3) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint under subsection (2) above unless it is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date when the complainant became aware of the failure of his employer to treat the contract of employment as modified as required by subsection (1) above.

(4) Where an industrial tribunal finds that a complaint presented to it under subsection (2) above is well founded the tribunal shall make such of the following as it considers just and equitable—
(a) an order declaring the rights of the complainant and the respondent in relation to the act to which the complaint relates, and
(b) an order requiring the respondent to pay to the complainant compensation not exceeding the limit for the time being imposed by section 75 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

(5) In section 136 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (appeals from industrial tribunals to Employment Appeal Tribunal) in subsection (1) after paragraph (g) there shall be inserted the words—
(h) the Sunday Trading Act 1994.".

(6) In this section—
shop worker" has the same meaning as in Schedule 4 below and
Sunday-only worker" means a person who is employed as a shop worker to work only on a Sunday.'—[Ms Ruddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
There are two objectives to the new clause. We seek to give rights to Sunday-only workers and to underpin the general worker protections in the Bill.
At present the majority of Sunday-only workers in the retail trade work illegally. If the House does not pass this Bill, we must assume that their retail outlets will be closed, and these workers will not work at all. It follows that those who would be covered by the Bill and who might become legitimate Sunday-only workers constitute a new group of workers—workers who, even under this Bill, would have virtually no rights. That seems inappropriate.
9.30 pm
We are used to the Government removing various employment protection provisions for workers. But, through the legislation, the Government propose to create a new pool of workers. The Opposition regard it as their


duty to try to amend the Bill to make some provision for those workers. We seek to afford them rights on sick pay, pensions, holidays and other contractural benefits that are comparable with those of week-day workers. We are aware that those are contractual matters. It would be difficult for us or any other amenders of legislation to propose measures that interfered with those contracts. I am sure that the Minister would be quick to tell us that we could not do so. It is reasonable to seek to make some comparision between those who work for one day only, Sunday, and those who work for the same enterprise on a week day.
Effective worker protection under the Bill will depend on a number of factors. There are two key elements—first, a common culture of respect for the provisions across the board among employers and employees and, secondly, retail employers' commercial incentive to comply and/or disincentive for non-compliance. Sunday-only workers, by their very nature, fall outside the normal provisions of worker protection, and of the Sunday Trading Bill and existing legislation, principally, the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 because of their insufficient service time. That period is two years for those who are essentially full-time workers and five years for those working as few as eight hours.
Some Sunday-only workers may fall within the scope of existing employment protection. They will have to accrue the appropriate number of years of work before such protection becomes effective. At present, very few legal Sunday workers have worked the length of service required for their protection. Where workers have no protection, it is almost impossible for them, especially if they are without the benefit of trade union representation, to secure decent conditions and terms of employment.
Sunday-only workers form one of the most vulnerable groups of workers in our society. They are casual workers who are open to commercial exploitation. Not only might they be exploited on Sunday, but they might be pressed into employment on an ad hoc basis at other times. We believe that it is essential for their protection, and for the protection of week-day workers, that the terms and conditions of the Sunday-only workers are comparable with those of week-day workers.
As some of my hon. Friends said in an earlier debate, we do not want Sunday workers' wages and conditions to become depressed as Sunday trading increases, with a knock-on effect for the week-day worker. If the legislation is passed, Sunday workers will become a newly legitimised group. We seek to protect them and to ensure that they do not develop into a ghetto of casual workers on inferior terms.

Mr. Purchase: I support new clause 2. It is reasonable that people employed on a Sunday-only basis should enjoy protection on a pro-rata basis with colleagues in the same establishment who are full or part-time employees. I hope that hon. Members will be able to support the new clause.
Let us consider someone who has been employed on the basis that he or she will work only on Sundays with no prospect of remission with pay from that work. Although the clause keeps referring to "him", it really deals with "her" because it is almost inevitable that Sunday-only workers will be females. Their children will sometimes confound them by being sick the day after they have been in robust health. After spending a night looking after an ill child, or waking up to find their child is not well, there is

no way that they can go to work. It is reasonable that a person in that position should receive, on a pro rata basis, sickness pay for the day when she is unavoidably absent from work.
People take on such employment to improve their household income. The word "pin money" was used earlier, but I suspect that not too many people work for pin money in the old-fashioned sense, but, rather, to supplement their income, which is inadequate for a decent standard of living.
A holiday entitlement should be given to those who are fortunate enough to work for a decent employer who—notwithstanding the comments of Conservative Members—pays double time and at sensible rates. It is wrong that we should even consider allowing someone to work 52 Sundays every year without a pro rata holiday entitlement.
It is commonplace for workers to enjoy, after a period of time, 20 days or four weeks holiday per annum. Four Sundays off is all that the new clause seeks to provide. It would be just enough for Sunday-only workers to enjoy an Easter Sunday, a couple of weeks off in the summer or a week with the children during their Whitsun break. Those are eminently reasonably arguments.
I understand that the new clause has to be so long because it sets out new provisions for people who would not otherwise be covered. It is a plea on behalf of Sunday-only workers, who overwhelmingly are women, to enjoy the sensible pro rata arrangements that apply at their workplace. Those arrangements include sickness pay and allowing workers time off if their family, including relatives for whom they are responsible, unexpectedly fall ill. It is not unreasonable to expect a good employer to allow for that contingency and to allow sickness pay and holiday entitlement.
A Sunday-only woman worker may become used to an income of perhaps £15 a week, which may not seem much but is a lot for a family that is otherwise totally dependent on social security. She is the sort of worker who arrives for work 15 minutes before the shop opens and stays half an hour after it closes. It would be unfair not to pay her the income to which she has become accustomed and with the help of which she has elevated her family's status. She may have worked in that shop for three or four years and not had a day off or missed a beat.
Unless we include provisions in the Bill, the majority of employers, and certainly those who do not recognise trade unions, will not concede such workers' rights. It is reasonable for the House to provide pro rata benefits in sickness and holiday pay for women who will give up their time to enable us to shop on Sundays. Every hon. Member should support what is, after all, a very modest proposal.

Mrs. Wise: It would be intolerable if the Bill were passed without the new clause being added. It is an essential recognition of the fact that people who work only on Sundays are human beings with the same rights and needs as other workers. Without the new clause, there will be no guarantee that Sunday-only workers will have sick pay or holidays. Indeed, the probability is that they will not and that any time taken off work for whatever reason will be unpaid. Such arrangements are intolerable for Sunday-only workers and extremely dangerous for workers in general.
I am probably arguing my case in a way that will lose me any potential support from Conservative Members


who, I am sure, would like nothing better than to find yet another mechanism to undercut and drive down wages and conditions. Nevertheless, I appeal to the Committee to accept the amendment.
The retail industry is a major employer and it would be extremely dangerous to allow casual work to become so prevalent that it undermines the conditions of those who work more regularly at other times. In this instance, the interests of all shopworkers are the same—they need protecting. I hope that the Committee will accept the

Ms Glenda Jackson: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) pointed out that, for a variety of reason, the majority of workers who work exclusively on Sundays are undoubtedly women. He also dealt eloquently with the problem of women who might be unable to go to work because their children have fallen ill. As he rightly said, children have a habit of suddenly becoming ill. However, women are responsible not only for family members at the younger end of the age range but, increasingly, for elderly relatives.
It has been estimated that women carers save the country in the region of £6 billion a year, which is a sizeable sum. Quite rightly, the country is moving towards the idea that as our life expectancy increases we should be cared for in our own homes as long as humanly possible. That is what care in the community is all about.
Many women desperately need the additional sums that Sunday working provides, no matter how small they might be. However, they are caught in the trap of human values which I should have thought the Committee would be eager to preserve. Those values have to do with care and affection for members of the family, especially as they grow older. As a nation, we are living longer and the quality of our life is increasingly dependent on family members who are willing to care for us. The Committee should consider the issue seriously.
When we discussed the possibility of reducing the length of notice that must be given from three months to one month, the Minister said that that would strike especially hard at shops selling particular specialities to the consuming public. In the case under consideration that would undoubtedly be so, and it would strike against the very employers who take the time and trouble to train their Sunday-only employees, to make it incumbent on them that if, for a variety of reasons, one of the newly-trained Sunday-only employees could not work on that one day, that person would automatically have to be dismissed. The employer would again be on the treadmill of having to train workers and losing them once they were trained.

Mr. Pike: Is not there a danger that if the shopworker falls ill but does not get sick pay he or she will turn up to work anyway? If such people are dealing with food, would not that be highly dangerous? In the interests of hygiene and of food safety we should ensure that sick pay is given, to enable workers to stay at home in such circumstances.

Ms Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for making that valid point. In recent years there has been a marked increase in all forms of food poisoning, traced back to a reduction in standards of hygiene, especially where food is prepared. One of the growing trends is for large supermarkets to provide food for consumption, if not on the premises, within easy walking distance, so my hon.

Friend makes a valid point. People would not think twice about turning up for work with a cold if they would otherwise lose money. Moreover, it is well documented both scientifically and medically that it is sometimes possible for people to be carriers of diseases from which they do not themselves suffer. The possibility of diseases spreading throughout the community becomes stronger if people who are desperate for the regrettably small sums that they earn on a Sunday have to calculate whether they will lose that money.
It is important for the Committee, especially Conservative Members, to readjust their thinking about what it means to be employed, and what the exchange of skills for wages means. There should be an equal contract, but among Conservatives there seems to be a prevailing view that it is a privilege to have a job. Given the shamefully high unemployment that the Government's economic policies and incompetence have heaped upon the country, that is not surprising, but as a House representing all the people of our country, we should not allow such ideas to sway us when we make decisions on such important amendments.
My hon. Friends and I have already said that most Sunday-only workers will be women. Those women sacrifice a great deal to enable their fellow citizens to shop on a Sunday, and the House should acknowledge those sacrifices. If the House is unwilling to acknowledge them in cash terms, in the money that people take home in their pay packets at the end of the working day, we should argue fiercely and strongly that what they cannot have in cash they should have in kind. They should be able to enjoy the benefits of other workers, although those are few in comparison with those of our European competitors—sick pay, holiday pay and the ability to participate as equal partners in a job that I sometimes think that Conservative Members do not regard as real work.
Conservative Members may consider it a doddle, to use a popular phrase, for a woman to sit at a check-out. They think that all she has to do is to pass the items that customers buy across a computerised machine. As I have said as someone who had her first experience of the working world as a shop assistant, it was an extremely draining job. One was constantly meeting members of the general public and on occasions they could be extremely bloody-minded.

Mrs. Wise: Is my hon. Friend aware that passing goods through the check-out is designed to be performed to targets and that the operator is expected to process anything up to 25 items a minute? Does she agree that, hour after hour, that is enormously fatiguing?

Ms Jackson: I entirely agree. I have no doubt that given the commercial pressures which retailers are under, the number of goods which will be required to pass through the check-out will increase and the amount of time given to the assistant sitting there will decrease. That is invariably the case.
The Committee must acknowledge that we are talking about real work. There is great sacrifice, in the main, on the part of women employees, who will be the majority of Sunday-only workers. The Committee should ensure, as far as it is humanly possible, that the sacrifices and skills of those women are acknowledged. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East said, the service that those women have provided for their fellow citizens


should also be acknowledged. If it is not the will of the Committee that those skills, sacrifices and services are acknowledged in hard cash, I strongly urge Conservative Members to support them being acknowledged in kind.
It is a difficult job to deal with the general public, especially when there is a marked stress on output. We have heard in previous debates that many retailers allow long queues to gather at check-outs because they are always conscious of overhead costs. Those at the sharp end in all such circumstances are the women sitting at the check-outs. The House should as far as possible—that possibility is infinitely wider than preceding votes have shown—support those women.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am once again constrained by the clock, so I shall sum up the Government's view of the new clause as quickly as I can. If I have followed what it means correctly, or certainly what it is intended to mean, the new clause would require that all the terms and conditions which are made available by an employer to his full-time, weekly staff would have to be available to Sunday-only staff.
I have considerable sympathy for the general idea, although we are talking more about part-time workers, not only about Sunday-only workers. Again I am dubious about whether it is fair and practical that workers who work one day or a limited time during the week should automatically receive all the benefits enjoyed by those who have earned those benefits, who have devoted far longer hours or years to their work. Those full-time workers rely on their jobs for their pensions, bonus rights, maternity benefits and career breaks. The new clause makes it clear that the employer is obliged to make available similar terms.
For example, an employer would have to make arrangements for Sunday-only workers to join the company pension scheme. That would certainly create problems for a properly managed pension scheme. I suspect that it would also be unwelcome to many, if not all, Sunday workers, who would not want to see stoppages taken out of their pay for the pension fund, especially if they were building a pension with another employer, or were students who had not yet entered into full-time work, or were wives who wanted to build up some income to pay for a mortgage or for a particular occasion, as has been said before.
Of course, the Government want to see good pay and conditions, but the trade-off between the two is best left to the employers and the employees, or the unions on their behalf, to negotiate. I do not believe that the new clause would do Sunday workers a good turn. It would certainly impose a rigidity that would diminish the amount of Sunday work available and the level of straight remuneration in the form of take-home pay for Sunday-only workers. It would probably dilute some benefits for full-time workers. It would certainly cut the unions out of helping Sunday workers to secure the best deal available for them as part-timers.
The interests and needs of part-timers are not always the same as those of full-time staff, and the benefits can be quite different. On benefits, certainly, the matter is much more complicated than the amendment recognises and it would be in everyone's interest for the provisions in this Bill to be left unchanged—although I accept that the House

may wish to return to the position of part-time workers in a different Bill and on another occasion. That is a matter for the House and for my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who was sitting next to me a few moments ago and who will no doubt read with enormous interest what I have said.

Mr. Alton: This is a good new clause because it recognises that people who are employed on a Sunday should receive treatment commensurate with that accorded to those employed during the rest of the week, on a pro rata basis. It recognises that those who work on a Sunday should have the same dignity and rights as anyone else.
We should not underestimate the Bill's scope. The Shops Act 1950 has led to about 300,000 people being employed. The Keep Sunday Special option would have led to about 100,000 extra people being employed. The deregulatory option to which the House agreed—the so-called compromise—will lead to about 1 million extra people being employed on a Sunday. Unless we build in safeguards such as that proposed in the new clause, those people will be exploited on rack rates of pay and we shall have a charter for the downgrading of the retail trade. Jobs that were once permanent full-time jobs will be replaced by part-time work, with people being exploited as a consequence. That is why it is important that the Committee should accept the new clause.

Ms Ruddock: I regret to say that the Minister has once again missed the point. I reiterate what I said in my opening speech: if the Bill is enacted, the Government will be creating a new group of workers—workers who go to work on Sunday because it has become legal to trade on Sunday. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has given us the figures, which are very substantial.
Those new workers will go to work without any form of employment protection. The new clause seeks to give them not different or wonderful conditions but decent conditions commensurate with those enjoyed by workers working for the same employer in the same retail outlet on a weekday. That is very little to ask and it is typical of the Government that they should refuse that most modest of requests.
We are talking about a pool of the most vulnerable and poorly paid workers. As my hon. Friends have so eloquently said, many women go to work for very little money. Difficult family circumstances often render their wages vital. They go to work out of economic necessity. They should not go to work to line other people's pockets and provide profits for companies and services for the public without any recognition of the sacrifices that they make and of the fact that their responsibilities often go beyond the workplace and include care of the young and the elderly and other family responsibilities.
That group of workers clearly needs protection. Our new clause offers the most modest provision to ensure that such workers are given the terms and conditions developed for weekday workers, often as a result of trade union pressure in the workplace. Those who will work on Sundays under the Bill are a new pool of workers who are not protected. This new clause seeks to protect them and give them some reasonable conditions. We will take the new clause to a vote because we believe that this new pool of workers must gain some recognition for their service to


the community if the Bill is passed. We urge Tory Members to join us in voting for this modest proposal and for the protection of Sunday-only workers.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 273, Noes 305.

Division No. 116]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dowd, Jim


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Ainger, Nick
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Allen, Graham
Eastham, Ken


Alton, David
Enright, Derek


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Etherington, Bill


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fatchett, Derek


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Faulds, Andrew


Austin-Walker, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fisher, Mark


Barnes, Harry
Flynn, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Battle, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foulkes, George


Beggs, Roy
Fraser, John


Bell, Stuart
Fyfe, Maria


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galloway, George


Bennett, Andrew F.
Gapes, Mike


Benton, Joe
Garrett, John


Bermingham, Gerald
George, Bruce


Berry, Dr. Roger
Gerrard, Neil


Blair, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blunkett, David
Godsiff, Roger


Boateng, Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyes, Roland
Gordon, Mildred


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burden, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Byers, Stephen
Gunnell, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Mike


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hanson, David


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hardy, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cann, Jamie
Henderson, Doug


Chisholm, Malcolm
Heppell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Hood, Jimmy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoon, Geoffrey


Coffey, Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cohen, Harry
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Connarty, Michael
Hoyle, Doug


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hutton, John


Cousins, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cryer, Bob
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cummings, John
Jamieson, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Denham, John
Jowell, Tessa


Dewar, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dixon, Don
Keen, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)





Khabra, Piara S.
Prescott, John


Kilfedder, Sir James
Primarolo, Dawn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Purchase, Ken


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kirkwood, Archy
Radice, Giles


Leighton, Ron
Randall, Stuart


Lewis, Terry
Raynsford, Nick


Litherland, Robert
Redmond, Martin


Livingstone, Ken
Reid, Dr John


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rendel, David


Loyden, Eddie
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McAllion, John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Ian
Rooker, Jeff


Macdonald, Calum
Rooney, Terry


McFall, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McLeish, Henry
Ruddock, Joan


Maclennan, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


McMaster, Gordon
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNamara, Kevin
Short, Clare


McWilliam, John
Simpson, Alan


Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maginnis, Ken
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mahon, Alice
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Soley, Clive


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Spearing, Nigel


Martlew, Eric
Spellar, John


Maxton, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Meacher, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Michael, Alun
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Stevenson, George


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Stott, Roger


Milburn, Alan
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Miller, Andrew
Straw, Jack


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morgan, Rhodri
Tipping, Paddy


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Tyler, Paul


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mudie, George
Wallace, James


Mullin, Chris
Walley, Joan


Murphy, Paul
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wareing, Robert N


O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshire)
Watson, Mike


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Hara, Edward
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Olner, William
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


O'Neill, Martin
Wilson, Brian


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Winnick, David


Parry, Robert
Wise, Audrey


Patchett, Terry
Wray, Jimmy


Pendry, Tom
Wright, Dr Tony


Pickthall, Colin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pike, Peter L.



Pope, Greg
Tellers for the Ayes:


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Alan Meale.


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Aspinwall, Jack


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Robert


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Arbuthnot, James
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Ashby, David
Bates, Michael






Batiste, Spencer
French, Douglas


Bellingham, Henry
Fyfe, Maria


Bendall, Vivian
Gale, Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gallie, Phil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gardiner, Sir George


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garnier, Edward


Booth, Hartley
Gill, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Andrew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowis, John
Gorst, John


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grylls, Sir Michael


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hague, William


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Butler, Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Carttiss, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Cash, William
Hayes, Jerry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heald, Oliver


Churchill, Mr
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clappison, James
Hendry, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hicks, Robert


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For"st)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dicks, Terry
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, Sir David


Eggar, Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Elletson, Harold
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Leigh, Edward


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Faber, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fabricant, Michael
Lidington, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacKay, Andrew





Maclean, David
Sims, Roger


McLoughlin, Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Madel, Sir David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Soames, Nicholas


Major, Rt Hon John
Speed, Sir Keith



Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Martand, Paul
Spink, Dr Robert


Mariow, Tony
Spring, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sproat, Iain


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mates, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Steen, Anthony


Merchant, Piers
Stephen, Michael


Mills, Iain
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Allan


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Streeter, Gary


Moate, Sir Roger
Sumberg, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Sweeney, Walter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sykes, John


Moss, Malcolm
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Needham, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Thomason, Roy


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Norris, Steve
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thurnham, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ottaway, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Page, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Paice, James
Tredinnick, David


Patnick, Irvine
Trend, Michael


Patten, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pawsey, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Viggers, Peter


Pickles, Eric
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Walden, George


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waller, Gary


Powell, William (Corby)
Ward, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Watts, John


Richards, Rod
Wells, Bowen


Riddick, Graham
Whitney, Ray


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Robathan, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wilkinson, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Willetts, David


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wilshire, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wolfson, Mark


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Tom
Yeo, Tim


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas



Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Michael Brown.


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress leave to sit again.

Committee reported progress.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14(Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Sunday Trading Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood]

Question agreed to.

Again considered in Committee.

New clause 3

NON-ABATEMENT OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS

`(1) Any provision in an agreement between a shop worker and his employer (whether a contract of employment or not) shall be unenforceable to the extent that it purports—
(a) to exclude or limit the operation of any provision of this Act, and
(b) to preclude any person from presenting a complaint to or from bringing any proceedings before an industrial tribunal under any provision of this Act.

(2) For the purposes of this section "shop worker" has the same meaning as in Schedule 4 below.'.—[Mr. Purchase.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Purchase: I beg to move, That the clause he read a Second time—[interruption.] Conservative Members may wish this to be a mere formality, and I am anxious to oblige them so that they can rush away to their clubs, but they would only have to rush back again later. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not rich enough"] No, they are not.
The new clause ensures that any worker protection in the Bill is underwritten and cannot be abated. Let me explain to hon. Members who may not have experienced the difficulties of employer-employee relationships. Let us suppose that the Government had been generous this evening and had accepted some of the modest amendments that we proposed—for example, double time for working on Sunday.
Although we know that, in many instances, the basic rate of pay is low, and that twice times not a lot is still not a lot, it is clear that the employer may well cuddle up to the employee and suggest not only that he or she may work on Sunday, but that the employer could perhaps find them a couple of hours on a Saturday as well. Under the new, totally unregulated shopping proposals that will come before the House shortly, an employer might even suggest that the employee could work a couple of evenings as well, saying, "If you'll work without wanting double time on Sunday, I'm sure I can accommodate your additional needs," which will lead to more income in one way or another.
The new clause will prevent that, because it is a sure bet that, once abatement of the measures in the Bill starts, it

will be a slippery slope. I understand that the Minister believes that there are few or no loopholes through which abatement could be practised, but it is for him to demonstrate that that is so. I must put on record that the Opposition want a non-abatement clause to ensure that any protections for workers are enacted in full and to the benefit of all concerned.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) is seeking to ensure that no agreement or contract which an employer may persuade an employee to enter into can override or take away the rights provided to the employee by schedule 4 of the Bill.
I am sure that none of the rights can be removed or curtailed by any such device, and certainly not by the devices that he adumbrated. However, as I want to be sure that there is absolutely no way in which an employee can lose those rights, and as the new clause has only recently been printed on the amendment paper, I shall take legal advice to ensure that there are no such loopholes to close. If there are, I shall table an amendment or a new clause on Report. I do not believe that there are any loopholes, but I am certain that, if there were, the wording of the hon. Gentleman's new clause would not be sufficient to cover them.
The hon. Gentleman has my assurance that I shall look carefully into the matter. If he wants to come to see me at any time and tell me of any additional worries, I shall be very happy to meet him with my officials.

Mr. Purchase: The Minister is generous. Following what the Government have done this evening, we were due a little generosity—and we have received very little indeed. None the less, I thank the Minister for his undertaking. If he finds difficulties or loopholes, he may well come back with his own amendments. Such amendments would be welcomed by the Opposition. The essence of our case is that we want reasonable and proper protection for workers while they serve the rest of us on Sundays.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — Statutory Sick Pay Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,

That the Order of the House [14th December] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1. (1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Statutory Sick Pay Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.

(2) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above—
(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended.
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

2.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
(3) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) Such a Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

4.—(1) In this paragraph "The proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) Proceedings under paragraph 1(2) or 2(3) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(5) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that shall have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings of the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

(6) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

The motion provides that further consideration of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill should be concluded no later than two hours from now, and specifies the order in which the amendments are to be considered.

This is not a long or complicated Bill, and the House has already had ample time to debate its main provisions. The House should bear in mind the fact that the Bill will take effect from 6 April this year. I believe that we owe it to industry and commerce to complete our consideration in good time to enable employers to introduce the changes as smoothly as possible.

Against that background, I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Keith Bradley: It is extraordinary that we should be starting our consideration of Lords amendments by yet again debating a guillotine motion. The debacle of the handling of this Bill continues. It started on 16 December, when the Government failed to secure, through all reasonable channels, a means of dealing with this Bill and with the Social Security (Contributions) Bill.
I believe that the Government now rue the day they chose to steamroller this measure through the House. They have shown utter contempt for proper scrutiny, and have caused outrage not only among Opposition Members but among the public. The legislation will affect businesses large and small throughout the country.
Although it is barely eight weeks since the Government used their original guillotine motion, and despite their arrogance and contempt, we have no intention of delaying matters further. When the Government, with barely six hours of debate, rushed the original provisions through, we predicted that it would be examined in greater detail in another place, and that, in particular, the provisions as they affected small businesses would be gone into.
Under the new legislation, the arrangement is to remove the opportunity for large businesses to reclaim a rebate on statutory sick pay and reduce the amount that small businesses can claim to 80 per cent., but not until after the first four weeks. We predicted that the Government would come under great pressure from small businesses, which the Labour party now represents so effectively. Clearly, we are now the champions of small businesses. We knew that, as a result of the pressure that we placed on the Government, as well as the opportunity for enlightened debate in the other House, amendments would be brought forward.
We pointed out clearly on Second Reading that the shift of the burden of some £750 million on to small businesses at a time when they were trying to recover from the Government's economic mismanagement was a burden against which they would rightly fight. Although the Government said that the 0·2 per cent. changes made to national insurance contributions would not lead to costs to small businesses, we had always questioned that, and will look carefully at the figures when the legislation comes in.

Mr. John Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bradley: No, time is short because of the guillotine motion.

Mr. Sykes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman is clearly not giving way.

Mr. Bradley: We have important points to make in this debate, and although I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman when we debate the amendments, which I am sure he is interested in and will wish to contribute to, I cannot give way at this stage.
We do not intend to delay the House at this stage, but we predicted that the Government would have to table an amendment at the Lords amendments stage to recognise the horror felt by small businesses at the provisions of the Bill. I shall delay the House no longer but simply put on record again the fact that the Government's shoddy contempt for the House has led us to this unfortunate position. That is why the Labour party will continue to harass the Government and effectively scrutinise this legislation at every turn throughout this Session of Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Statutory Sick Pay Bill

Lords Amendments considered.

After Clause 2

Lords amendment: No. 1.

("—(1) In part XI of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (statutory sick pay), after section 159 insert—

Power to provide for recovery by employers of sums paid by way of statutory sick pay.

159A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the recovery by employers, in accordance with the order, of the amount (if any) by which their payments of, or liability incurred for, statutory sick pay in any period exceeds the specified percentage of the amount of their liability for contributions payments in respect of the corresponding period.

(2) An order under subsection (1) above may include provision—
(a) as to the periods by reference to which the calculation referred to above is to be made,
(b) for amounts which would otherwise be recoverable but which do not exceed the specified minimum for recovery not to be recoverable,
(c) for the rounding up or down of any fraction of a pound which would otherwise result from a calculation made in accordance with the order, and
(d) for any deduction from contributions payments made in accordance with the order to be disregarded for such purposes as may be specified,

and may repeal sections 158 and 159 above and make any amendments of other enactments which are consequential on the repeal of those sections.

(3) In this section—

"contributions payments" means payments which a person is required by or under any enactment to make in discharge of any liability of his as an employer in respect of primary or secondary Class 1 contributions; and

"specified" means specified in or determined in accordance with an order under subsection (1).

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such transitional and consequential provision, and such savings, as he considers necessary or expedient for or in connection with the coming into force of any order under subsection (1) above.".

(2) In section 176(1)(c) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (parliamentary control: orders subject to affirmative procedure), at the appropriate place insert "section 159A(1)".

(3) the Secretary of State—
(a) shall lay before each House of Parliament the draft of an order under section 159A(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (inserted by subsection (1) above) framed so as to come into force on or before 6th April 1995, and
(b) if the draft order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, shall make the order in the form of the draft,

Unless before 1st December 1994 he lays before each House of Parliament a report explaining why he does not intend to make such an order.")

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take also Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4, the last of which involves privilege.

Mr. Scott: It is widely recognised that we are aware of the special needs of small employers faced with more lengthy absences due to sickness. That is why we have always intended to make generous improvements to the existing small employers' relief provisions by increasing the number of employers eligible to benefit from that


concession. We shall also reduce the period after which full reimbursement becomes available, from the present six weeks to four weeks.
Those changes will be brought into effect from 6 April 1994 by means of affirmative regulations, a draft of which I propose to lay before Parliament tomorrow. Some 750,000 employers—almost two thirds of those eligible to pay statutory sick pay—will be eligible. The small employers' relief scheme will be of benefit to small firms when an employee goes sick for a long time. An alternative means of helping those employers has been proposed in another place.
We have never been opposed in principle to a new reimbursement scheme. Our concerns have centred around the need to avoid possible abuse of the new scheme and the need to obtain the relevant statistical data from employers so as to set the reimbursement threshold at an appropriate level.
10.30 pm
The lack of time available to consult both sides of industry more widely on the details of the proposed scheme means that we are unable to move as fast as some Members of the other place would wish. We believe that more time is needed to consider the proposed scheme in more detail. The amendment accepted in another place acknowledges the strength of our concerns and is worded in such a way as to allow sufficient time for the collection of data on employers' monthly statutory sick pay and national insurance contributions. That information will be crucial in enabling us to set the new reimbursement threshold at a level that will cost no more than the planned costs of the proposed enhancements to the existing small employers' scheme.
The new clause allows the Secretary of State to provide by order for employers to recover that amount of their statutory sick pay payments that exceeds a specified percentage of their national insurance contributions liability in a given period. If, following consultation, the Government decide that they do not wish to proceed with the new scheme proposed in another place, the amendment also requires the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament explaining his decision. That is a wise way to consider the future of the provision. The new clause also provides for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to repeal the existing small employers' relief provisions at sections 158 and 159 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. That would be a logical consequence of introducing a new SSP reimbursement scheme. It would be nonsensical to have both schemes running at the same time. The intention of the amendment is clearly to replace the existing system, not to augment it. The Government should accept the amendment, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Keith Bradley: It is rich for the Minister to move the amendment and claim that the Government always had the interests of small businesses in mind, and that it was only a matter of time before the amendment appeared. We should pay tribute to the other place for debating the subject so effectively and putting pressure on the Government to recognise the factor that we

recognised on Second Reading—the great unhappiness among small businesses about the Bill's original provisions.
We only have to look yet again at the comments made by the small business organisations at the time to recognise that, even then, the Government were in trouble over the provision. The Institute of Directors stated that it was worried about the damaging effects on business of the new burdens created by the changes in the statutory sick pay provisions. Surprisingly, the Confederation of British Industry stated:
It poses fundamental questions about who should bear the cost of social security provision.
I shall not expand on that subject tonight as I would be straining the terms of the amendment. A marker has been put down to show us that we should keep a wary eye on the Government, otherwise other potential social security and social insurance provisions may be passed on to small businesses. Maternity pay may be the next provision that businesses have to fund in future. In the past it has been funded through the social security system.
The Forum for Small Business—not an organisation that would normally defend the suggestions that we made at the time the problems arose—made the following statement:
Current proposals if implemented are likely to become the principal cause of a significant number of insolvencies.
On Second Reading, we flagged up the potential problems for small businesses when the £750 million statutory sick pay burden was shifted to industry. We are debating a major change, and the time for us to do so is being limited. Any amount of time was given to ensuring proper debate of an earlier measure that merely—I use the word "merely" for purposes of comparison—reduced a 100 per cent. clawback to 80 per cent. I shall not repeat all the arguments that expressed our outrage at the guillotining of this Bill; we are all living with the consequences.
As the Minister said, the amendment was prompted by widespread anxiety—first expressed by the Labour party in the House of Commons, but pursued more vigorously by the other place because of the extra time allowed there—about the way in which small businesses would be affected by not being able to claw back rebate for sick pay in the first four weeks.
It was felt that—as the Opposition had made clear in this House—most illness leading to a requirement for sick pay occurred in those first four weeks; indeed, research had shown as much. The Government were placing a particular burden on small businesses; they were tackling the problem of long-term sickness, rather than considering the short-term sickness that potentially posed the biggest problem for small businesses. An epidemic, for instance, could cause enormous problems for the businesses that can least afford not only to pay sickness benefit to staff, but to provide replacement staff.
Having heard the arguments advanced in the other place, the Government considered them carefully. They had two main objections.
First, as the Minister said, the shift of burden might be open to abuse by employers who, the Government believed, might move their statutory sick pay payments from one month to another so as to reach the set level over a period. We therefore welcome the new mechanism to avoid that problem.
The Government's second worry was that there would not be enough time to implement the scheme—the


necessary consultations could not be concluded in time to have the revamped arrangements in place by April. As we now know, the new proposals to meet the Government's objection to their Lordships' original plan decree that the revised scheme will come into force on 6 April 1995. This will give the Government not two but 14 months to prepare the scheme. Our chief reason for not opposing the Lords amendment is that it will allow for proper consultations to be held with the main organisations that will be affected by it.
One of the merits of the proposed new scheme is that there will be some simplicity in its implementation. There is always the danger, however, now that more and more legislation is effected by regulation, that schemes will become much more complicated when translated into regulations. We want to ensure that the regulations, when they eventually appear, do not cause more bureaucratic and cost complications for small businesses. That would defeat the whole object of the exercise. The Opposition maintain that this is a time when small businesses can ill afford additional cost burdens. I therefore hope that the regulations will ensure that the simplicity of the new system is maintained.
I hope to hear from the Under-Secretary this evening which bodies and organisations he proposes to consult. I hope that the Government will consult not just those who represent small businesses but others who will be affected by the changes. I am, for instance, especially worried about the effects on disabled people.
On Second Reading, we expressed our anxiety lest the changes to SSP led to what might be termed a charter to sack the sick. We wanted to ensure that the fact that small businesses will be denied the chance to reclaim SSP forfour weeks did not lead to a reluctance on the part of employers to employ certain categories of people. We were thinking particularly of disabled people.
There is grave concern about this in the Committee scrutinising the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill. We have yet to debate the medical test that the Government intend to introduce, but they seem to assume that about 70,000 people who are on invalidity benefit will become "employable". We have always feared that they may be too sick to be employable—employers may look at their sickness record and be reluctant to employ them given the possible burden that they represent following the changes in statutory sick pay—but not sick enough to be able to claim the new incapacity benefit.
They will fall between two stools, because they will remain on the unemployment register, which the Government claim they are trying to reduce, but the Government are not aware of the difficulties that people with a sickness record experience in seeking employment.
I very much hope that the Government's consultation will not only cover bodies that represent firms but will range wider and will consider how the changes that the Government propose will affect particular groups of people.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, when the Government limited reimbursement of SSP to 80 per cent., the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said:
The employers say that, if the Bill is passed into law, they will be extremely careful about who they employ, and will make their decisions on the basis of an applicant's health record.

Anyone with a poor health record or a poor prognosis of good health for the future will be unlikely to get a job."—[Official Report, 26 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 652.]
That is what was said last time. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) has said it this time. Have the predictions that the hon. Member for Oldham, West made about the outcome of the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991 proved accurate?

Mr. Bradley: It is clear from talking to disabled people or to their organisations that they feel a great impediment to employment generally because of their disabilities. I pay tribute to some of the work that the Minister has done to facilitate disabled people entering the employment market, but all the surveys that have been conducted by disabled groups show that great difficulties remain. We want to ensure that there are no further barriers to employers taking on disabled people.
Extra costs and burdens are being placed on small businesses by their having to pay a greater proportion of sick pay. I should be amazed, therefore, if the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) does not recognise that small businesses will look even more carefully at the sickness records of people with disabilities.
It would be in all our interests to ensure that there is no impediment to disabled people returning to employment. That is the purpose of our seeking assurances tonight that that point will be covered in the report that will be provided to the House.
In the other place, amendments were proposed to the principal amendment that we are debating. Assurances were given, which I am sure will be repeated tonight, that we shall debate the report on the new scheme. If the Government's consultation reveals that there may be major difficulties in introducing a scheme, the amendment aims to ensure that it will not be quietly dropped. The details of introducing a scheme, or of not doing so, must be properly debated in the House.
We should not want the issue to slip away, nor would small businesses. The Government have many tried and tested mechanisms which could enable the report to slip off the agenda despite promises having been made in all good faith. Such mechanisms could include the pressure of parliamentary business in which we might be engaged in 14 months' time.
The Minister mentioned the costings of the amendment, which need to be made clear. There is still a debate about the cost of the changes, and the Government's belief that the extra burden of £750 million on businesses will be offset by alterations to the national insurance rate and that the reduction of 0·2 per cent will even out the effects needs careful consideration, as do any changes that result from the Lords amendments.
We should also be grateful for further comments on how the Government regard the provisions concerning a percentage of national insurance being used as the criterion for repayment of statutory sick pay. We should be grateful for some preliminary estimates of how it will work in practice. As the amendment has only just come from another place, I shall be happy for the Minister to write to me with details of the costings, which would be useful in our future deliberations on the report.
I look forward to obtaining the necessary information and assurances from the Government so that we can accept the amendment.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I found my case on the remarks on the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who has covered the most important issues in this debate, which is important but nevertheless constrained in terms of time. The hon. Gentleman made a comprehensive speech and the Minister should pay proper attention to it.
I was disappointed by the intervention of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). If he is looking for extreme statements made recently by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), he picked a mild one. The hon. Member for Oldham, West regularly used to anticipate, even encourage, Armageddon in every speech that he made from the Front Bench.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South should not discourage Labour's new social security Front-Bench team, which is much better than before, and I do not mean to sound patronising. If he is interested, he can meet me outside later and I will show him some truly extreme statements made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West.

Mr. Devlin: I have no doubt that such statements will recur in the speeches of the new Front-Bench team, who seem to be recycling some material.

Mr. Kirkwood: I part company with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but we are straying out of order.
It is worth spending a moment considering how we allow the other place to make important changes, such as this amendment. I welcome the amendment, which is a great improvement as far as it goes. It has already been said that, if the proceedings in this place had been better ordered, we should have agreed something similar. That would have been the right way to proceed.
I know that there were difficulties about the timetabling. I listened carefully to all the arguments about having time to organise ourselves, and I know that improvements have been made, but it is worth stressing that the Government have to ca' a bit canny in future, to use the vernacular, in order to ensure that the House has an opportunity to consider in good time the detailed improvements that can and should be made to Bills such as this.
We should spend time on the process of consultation with small businesses, too. I am not making a party political point, because Governments of all kinds have difficulties with that. The mechanisms in place are perfectly adequate for big business—international companies and world leaders such as ICI and GEC. They have well established contacts with the Government machine, and with Departments at all levels, and they can look after themselves. It must therefore be reasonably easy, so long as one takes the time to go through the process, to collect sensible views from a range throughout industry, and arrive at some idea of what the options are.
That is much more difficult when we are dealing with businesses employing two, 10 or 20 people. It is difficult for those businesses, too, because they are organised across all sorts of different interest groups, from tobacconists to knitwear manufacturers. They themselves find it difficult to arrive at a consensus.
There have been developments and improvements in that direction, through the formation of the Federation of Small Businesses, but it is still difficult for the Department,

even using its best endeavours, to arrive at a consensus. The Government should work harder at trying to make contact with what they would call very small businesses.
Their definition of a small business is probably one with 100 or 200 employees, but we must not forget that the regulations probably bear down most heavily on the firms that the hon. Member for Withington was talking about when he said that, if a company with 10 employees was hit by a flu epidemic and four of them were sick, it would have a real problem. I realise that it is difficult for Government to cope with such, small firms with so few employees, but we always have to work harder to do better in that respect.
I understand the function of the report, but what is in the Government's and the Minister's minds about monitoring the process? Ministers will always say that everything is continuously under review, but there is a case for examining the effects on people with disabilities.
It is wrong to over-dramatise the argument, but there is a fair point to be made about the potential and even subliminal discrimination that may take root if the regulations are not carefully monitored. I hope that the Department will set up some systematic monitoring over the next two or three years, so that the Minister can satisfy himself that he is taking all possible steps to examine how the principles work out in practice.
An awful lot can go wrong with the implementation of detailed regulations. With the best will in the world, when simple concepts are put into the hands of the parliamentary draftsmen they can come out looking complicated and difficult to implement. Efforts have been made to simplify the process; I realise that, and I welcome it. But will the regulations spawned by the amendment be approved on an affirmative or a negative basis? If regulations are to be introduced, the House should know that.
I hope that, by that time, the usual channels will have got back into kilter, so that we shall not have to debate every motion and statutory instrument on the Floor of the House. If that goes on much longer, we shall all end up in lunatic asylums [HON. MEMBERS: "You first."] Yes, perhaps I shall be one of the first inmates. It is important to know whether the orders will be affirmative or negative, so that we know what scrutiny of detailed regulations the House faces.
The question of costings, on which the hon. Member for Withington ended his speech, is important too. There has not been time to do much detailed arithmetic, but there must be some ball park figure in the Government's mind. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister would say a word about that matter when he sums up.

11 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): It seems that the proceedings on the Bill can end with some harmony at least. There seems to be all-party agreement on the Lords amendment, if perhaps a little marred by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who still talks about a shift of the burden to industry.
In fact, industry is the net beneficiary of the changes to statutory sick pay and the consequent reductions in national insurance contributions. Since small companies tend to have a lower incidence of sickness and absence than large companies, small companies especially stand to gain from the changes that the Government are bringing about.
The hon. Member for Withington asked about the consultation process, and especially expressed the hope that great complications and administrative burdens would not arise as a result of any new measures which may arise from the Lords amendment. I agree that extra complications and administrative burdens would be a serious disadvantage. Of course, it is in the mind of the Government to keep such burdens and complications to a minimum.
We intend to consult both sides of industry. We shall consult employers, unions, give especial weight to the opinions of small businesses and their organisations, and we shall also consult disability organisations.
The hon. Member for Withington raised the point about disabled employees. I remind him, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), that no evidence has ever been proffered to justify the charge levelled against the SSP scheme ever since it was first introduced more than 10 years ago, that it would have an adverse effect on disabled employees.
Research carried out by the Centre for Research in Social Policy shows that the reduction in SSP reimbursement from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. three years ago had no impact whatever on the willingness of employers to recruit employees with disabilities. It confirmed earlier research findings that such employees tend to take less time off through sickness than able-bodied colleagues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South was right to ask the hon. Member for Withington to recall the forecast of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) so rightly observed, the forecasts of the hon. Member for Oldham, West could be a most entertaining catalogue, which could keep us here for a long time.

Mr. Bradley: On the question of forecasts, may I assume from the Under-Secretary's comments on the burden that will be placed on small businesses and the way

in which he says they will be net gainers from the scheme, that he has given a commitment not to increase national insurance contributions in the future?

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to pre-empt the decisions of all future Chancellors and Secretaries of State, any more than he would want to pre-empt those of any future Chancellors or Secretaries of State from his party, remote though that possibility may be. People can look to the record of what has happened to national insurance contributions during our time in office and how it compares with the 13·5 per cent. level reached for employers' national insurance contributions with the surcharge in the 1970s. The record tells it all.
If there are great difficulties in the creation of the new scheme outlined in the Lords amendment, we will be able to consider them in the report to which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred. He may also like to know that, assuming that there is not a report but a new scheme, the orders will be affirmative. I am sure that he will be pleased to note that.
The Government will now proceed to consult industry on the proposal. Employers and their organisations will be able to compare the benefits of the new proposal with the existing help for small employers. They will be able to judge whether the loss to those employers who will not benefit under the new scheme is outweighed by the gains of those who will.
We will proceed to collect data on employers' monthly SSP and national insurance contributions payments so that the reimbursement threshold can be set at the appropriate level. I do not yet have any preliminary estimate, but there will be no secret about the estimates when we have arrived at them. We will also—this is most important—consider the monitoring and policing requirements of the proposed scheme to reduce the risk of abuse.
It is good to see that the measure has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and can proceed successfully.

Lords amendment agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Orders of the Day — Assessment of Deficits (European Community)

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Government's assessment as set out in sections 2, 4 and 5 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
It will be within the memory of many hon. Members that section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act, which put the Maastricht treaty into our own domestic law, contains a provision requiring the Government to report to Parliament for its approval an assessment of the medium-term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment expenditure and to the social, economic and environmental goals set out in article 2 of the treaty of Rome as amended by the Maastricht treaty. That is the occasion of the debate.
When the Maastricht Bill was being discussed in the other place, having been passed by this House, the Lord Advocate gave an assurance that the Government believed that, as a result of the inclusion of that provision, a debate in this House would be required before the information was submitted to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of the treaty as referred to in section 5 of the Act. That is the reason why the debate is taking place in the House this evening. It is a debate occasioned by section 5 of the Maastricht Act.
That bears no direct relationship to the question that the House is now being asked to address, however. Although the occasion is the passing of the information to Brussels under the terms of the treaty, the question that the House is being asked to address—which those on the Opposition Front Bench clearly identify in their amendment—is whether the House approves the contents of chapters 2, 4 and 5 of the Red Book tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on Budget day. The Red Book has already, on more than one occasion, been considered by the House as part of the Budget debate. As the terms of the Budget have been carried repeatedly in votes in the House, I think it not unreasonable to assume that the contents of the Red Book have been approved by the House. None the less, the debate gives the House the opportunity yet again to endorse the contents of the Red Book.

Mr. Andrew Smith: As this is a new procedure, it would be helpful to the House if the Minister could explain what happens under the provisions of article 103. If the Government's motion on these sections is approved and sent to Brussels, what happens to it thereafter? Under what circumstances will we get a report back, bearing in mind the amendment tabled by some Conservative Members?

Mr. Dorrell: Information that is tabled and submitted to the Government following the debate and sent to Brussels to satisfy our treaty obligations is used by the Commission in preparing the reports that it is required to prepare under the multilateral surveillance procedures and under the assessment of excessive deficits. That is the purpose of the submission of the information; it is not, however, the question that is before the House this evening. The question before the House this evening is whether it will approve again, as it has on several

occasions, the contents of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" presented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on Budget day.

Sir Teddy Taylor: While we appreciate that paragraphs 1, 9 and 11 of article 104c do not apply to Britain, does my hon. Friend appreciate that section 7 means that the Council could give instructions to member states, including Britain, and that the recommendations shall not be made public? Paragraph 7 states:
these recommendations shall not be made public".
Therefore, we Could have a situation in which the Commission tells the Government to do something, keep it secret and the House will not be aware of it. Does the Minister agree that, if the Commission gives such an instruction under paragraph 7, the Government would tell Parliament what was going on?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is usually meticulous in his use of the language. However, he has elided the concept of a recommendation contained in paragraph 7 of article 104c with the concept of an instruction. Those two words are not synonyms. I repeat the point: the House is being asked to approve a document that it has approved on many previous occasions. I commend the Government's motion to the House.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Select Committee on European Legislation considered these documents today and a severe reprimand was given to the Department and the Ministers concerned regarding the failure to perform this—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. That has nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Smith: Looking around the Chamber, I have to say that it is a bit like old times for all of us. The fact that we are debating the motion tonight and that the House has a right to vote on what the Government submit to Brussels is the result of Labour's ingenuity and determination in successfully forcing the Government to incorporate section 5 in the European Communities (Amendment) Act. It is entirely right that the House should have the opportunity to examine and vote on submissions before they are sent to Brussels under the convergence and multilateral surveillance provisions of articles 103 and 104C.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The hon. Gentleman is priding himself on the heroic posture of the Labour party during the Maastricht debate. Perhaps he would be good enough to remind hon. Members of the benefits that the Labour party obtained for itself and the nation by its attitude to the Maastricht treaty, set off against the way in which it supported the Government and made possible the imposition of the treaty on our nation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That does not relate to the motion.

Mr. Smith: I was wondering how to work within the surveillance procedures the gains that we made in terms of local authority representation on the Committee of the Regions, the democratic right of the House to scrutinise


business and, more importantly, the right to stretch the Government on the rack over their failure on the social chapter—denying the people of this country the rights that are taken for granted across the rest of Europe.
The country has a right to expect that the Government, in presenting the motion to the House, would make some effort to address the requirements of section 5 and specifically relate their submission to the goals of article 2 of the Maastricht treaty, which refers to
harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life".
Instead, what we have in front of us is the same tired and failed message that the Government have been trotting out since last year's Budgets.
That is a message which the country does not believe and which has demoralised the Conservative party's constituency activists—where it has any left. The Budgets broke the Conservative party's election promises on taxation to the extent that fully 69 per cent. of the population say that they will never trust the Conservatives on taxation again.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Smith: On that point, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That does not have much to do with section 5. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Let us get back to section 5.

Mr. Smith: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may reach for the Red Book, but he knows full well that there is nothing in it about opinion polls. I know my way around that book as well as he.

Mr. Smith: There is a great deal in the Red Book about taxation, and the Government have broken their promises on that.

Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman assist the House by explaining what the Labour party's present position is on what has been described as the multilateral surveillance procedure? We would imagine that, as part of its support for getting as quickly as possible towards a single currency, it is in favour of the subordination of the British national interest to foreign economic surveillance. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain what the Labour party's attitude to that matter is?

Mr. Smith: What the hon. Gentleman presumes to be the Labour party's policy is not. We believe that there is merit in the discussions involved in multilateral surveillance. They would provide co-operation with our European partners for the goals that the Opposition and the people of this country hold dear, which include getting back towards full employment.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Smith: I shall not give way again to the hon. Gentleman; I have already done so twice, and I want to make some progress.
The Budgets that we are invited in effect to approve as our submission to Europe are those that brought up the level of Tory tax increases to £12·50 extra on a typical family from April. Those tax increases, as the Chancellor and Ministers admit, will check the economic recovery, and that will do nothing to rescue the people and the economy from the damage that the Budget increases will inflict.
The Budget policies failed to stimulate investment in the face of all of the representations that the Government received from industry. The Budgets leave manufacturing investment languishing at barely one-third of the level of that of Germany. Our manufacturing investment per employee is one of the lowest in the European Union. It is only one third of the level of the Netherlands, it is 46 per cent. lower than in France and 26 per cent. lower than in Germany. No wonder Britain's record on economic growth is so poor.
Whatever comfort may be taken from the present relative growth rates in Europe, what counts is the long-term growth record cancelling out the differential effect of the timing of recession and recovery in each country.

Mr. Dorrell: indicated assent.

Mr. Smith: On that important count, Britain lags badly. The Financial Secretary agrees that the long-term growth record is the important criterion. That shows that, between 1979 and 1993, the Japanese economy grew by 63 per cent. and the American economy by 35 per cent. In Europe, the Italian economy grew by 32 per cent., those of the German lander by 32 per cent., the French economy by 31 per cent. and the United Kingdom economy by only 25 per cent.

Mr. Dorrell: The proposition with which I was agreeing was that which the hon. Gentleman advanced to the House and then proceeded to ignore. That proposition is that one compares growth rates by looking across a longer period and comparing performance from similar points in the cycle. The hon. Gentleman's comparison for the United Kingdom economy used 1979, which was the nearest thing to the peak of the cycle that the previous Government ever succeeded in creating, and 1993, which nobody could possibly regard as the peak of any economic cycle. The hon. Gentleman set out precisely the right basis for making long-term economic comparisons and proceeded immediately to ignore it.

Mr. Smith: I fear that, however long a period we take, the Financial Secretary will be disappointed, because Britain has such a poor performance on long-term growth, as a direct result of the low figures on manufacturing investment per employee, which I have just pointed out.
However, that is not the only difficulty that the Government face. We have a large balance of payments deficit for this stage of the economic cycle. The Financial Secretary made the important point that it is necessary to compare appropriate points of the economic cycle. He could not dispute that, for this stage of the economic cycle, the balance of payments deficit that Britain is running is depressingly large and, what is more, is set to get worse.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong again. He just asserted that the balance of payments deficit is getting worse. It is not. It is getting better.

Mr. Smith: I said that it was set to get worse. Time will be the test of who is right on that. As I am sure that the Financial Secretary is well aware, many commentators predict, a few years down the road, a terrible problem with the balance of payments deficit as a result of the Government's failure to improve Britain's industrial competitiveness.
Accompanying the balance of payments deficit is the most serious failure of all—the failure to tackle the mass unemployment which drains individuals of hope and the country of the wealth that their energies and talents would create if they were employed. Mass unemployment floods into the public sector borrowing requirement. The Government's record could not be presented to Brussels as one which promoted, in the words of article 2 of the treaty, "a high level of employment". Even as unemployment, on the Government's figures, has started to turn down, levels of employment have fallen even further.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman referred to western Germany, but did not refer to Germany as a whole. Does he agree that one of the reasons why it is necessary to refer to western Germany, rather than the whole of Germany, is that the whole of the report—every statistic in it—omits to include the whole of Germany? It leaves out the eastern part of Germany, which reduces the value of the report substantially. It means that we have nothing more than a shambles on our hands, and no means of judging whether the convergence criteria have been reached throughout Europe as a whole.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman said it. He can recognise a shambles over there when he sees one. I was referring to the western lander for the precise reason that, if one compares the period from 1979 to 1993, there is no meaningful comparison that one can make for that period that would include the eastern lander. Of course the statistics will have to reflect fully the position in eastern parts of Germany and include it with the whole. I only wish that the Government made the same determined effort to invest in worn-out infrastructure in depressed parts of Britain as the Germans have made in methodically setting about restoring the eastern part of Germany.
I was saying how badly the Government's proposals failed to address the corrosive, serious effect of unemployment in our nation and that levels of employment had fallen even further. Under the social goals to which the Government are supposed to relate their report to the EC, article 2 refers, as I have said, to a high level of social protection.
It is important to ask what social protection there is for those who have seen even basic employment rights taken away, wages councils abolished, sick pay, invalidity benefit and unemployment benefit cut and, tonight in the House, rights to premium pay defeated. This is not so much social protection as social intimidation. It is the exact opposite of the social partnership in the workplace between the community, employers and government at all levels that we need to see for sustained economic success and for the social solidarity referred to in article 2.
In a report which purports, as section 5 and article 2 do, to deal with social solidarity, the Government might have been expected to say something about crime and fraud, both international and domestic. Their poor record has seen crime rocket by 124 per cent. since 1979. British people are the most likely in Europe to be the victims of burglary.
Even the Tories cannot pretend that that has nothing to do with the deepening social divisions in Britain and the fragmentation of social cohesion resulting from their free market theories, which leave far too many people looking after number one. That opens the way for the illicit drugs industry and allows far too many people to be tempted to make more in crime—as they can—than from legitimate employment, with far too little prospect of being caught and convicted.
People are deeply worried about social fragmentation, unfairness and division. There can be little doubt that Britain is deeply divided. As Labour Members have been saying for a long time and as the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed yesterday, Conservative tax policies have thrown fairness out of the window. Middle and lower-income Britain is paying a high price for the failures of the 1980s. The Financial Secretary dubbed it the yuppie revolution but, as he said last year, it was "built on sand". As a result of the Government's tax policies, the top 1 per cent. of income earners have received 30 per cent. of the income tax cuts since 1979, but are paying only 4 per cent. of the tax rises being imposed.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman might also like to refer to the fact that the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers are now producing 45 per cent. of the yield of income tax, whereas when Dennis Healey left office they were producing Only 35 per cent.

Mr. Smith: I notice that the Financial Secretary did not challenge my case, which concerned the fairness and the unfairness of the top I per cent. receiving 30 per cent. of income tax cuts but paying only 4 per cent. of the rises.
In place of Conservative promises before the election not to extend value added tax and to achieve year-on-year cuts in taxation, people are faced with the unfairness of VAT on domestic fuel and the prospect of year-on-year tax increases. Page 23 of the Budget report that we are invited to approve tonight shows year-on-year increases in the share of national income going on taxation, rising to 38·5 per cent.—a higher tax take than in any year of any Labour government, which destroys once and for all Conservative claims to be a party of low taxation.
The Conservatives have added to the indirect tax burden. A typical family on average earnings pays 13 per cent. of its earnings on indirect tax, compared to 11·3 per cent. in 1978–79. The Conservatives have also added to the direct tax burden so that that same family pays 21·9 per cent. of its earnings in direct tax, compared with 20·9 per cent. in 1978–79.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The implication of the picture that the hon. Gentleman is painting is that mainland Europe's success in social cohesion, taxation policy and so forth has a direct, lasting and beneficial effect on unemployment. Will he confirm that the unemployment record of most of the countries of mainland Europe compares very unfavourably with the record in this country?

Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman studies the period that I was examining—I think that the Financial Secretary believes that it is right to study a long period of time—works out how many periods of growth and recession there were during that time and their extent and compares them with the record of each of those other countries, he will


realise what an abysmal record the Government have. They have diminished the opportunities and prosperity of the people of this country.
The tax burdens that I mentioned are the effects of the Government's incompetence at managing the economy, which is matched in scale only by the extent of their broken election promises. Their failures make Britain weaker, more demoralised and more divided.
Conservative Members too are certainly demoralised, and no wonder. On 22 January the Financial Secretary gave a keynote speech, which was intended, I dare say, to propel left-wing Conservatism into the next century. So replete was it with references to social obligation, the importance of public service and the rejection of jingoism that it could not, by any stretch of the imagination, have been given at last year's flag-waving Conservative conference. It did not register so much as an attack upon the Labour party as, perhaps, a putative application for membership. [Interruption.] For the benefit of the Financial Secretary, I repeat: not so much an attack on the Labour party as a putative application for membership.
It is quite clear that the people whom the Financial Secretary had in his sights when he made that speech were very much closer to home. Let me give an illustration. The Financial Secretary said:
Patriotism—like freedom—is a much-abused concept. The Conservative is well aware of the dangers and rejects the exaggerated histrionics of flag-waving nationalists. They offer symbols in place of substance—a cheap imitation of the real thing.
I wonder to whom that could have been referring. [Interruption.] hear someone ask "Where is he?" Where indeed?
But it gets better. Whom could the hon. Gentleman have had in mind when he said:
Furthermore, the Conservative will reject a narrow, inward-looking view of patriotism. Love of country does not imply hostility to foreigners.
Let him tell that to the Chief Secretary and to the noble Lord Tebbit.

Mr. Giles Radice: Does my hon. Friend agree that it ill behoves those of us with foreign names to make cheap jibes about foreigners?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has said it and, as usual, he is right.
The Financial Secretary went on to say:
European institutions do not represent a threat to our national identity or our national interests.
It is difficult to imagine those words escaping from the mouth of the Chief Secretary, even in an unguarded moment.
It is abundantly clear that, in the House and in the country, there are real divisions between the right and the left of the Conservative party. The former says that, with the long-term weakness of the economy, we should cut public services further so that we may move towards a more balanced budget and return to cutting taxes on the very rich. The latter says that, with the economic failures we face, the Government need to raise taxes so that they may inflict a bit less damage on public services.
The Financial Secretary and the Chancellor have referred to the quality of public services. They must mean that they want a bit less damage than their hon. Friends on the right want. Both groups contrast with the Labour party, which says, "Let's put in place the measures for economic

success so that we may help to make people better off and provide them with better public services and a fairer distribution of taxes."
The sections of the Budget report that we are considering tonight offer no basis for sustainable success. They hold in prospect no means of getting Britain to pull together for jobs, no restoration of the social fabric, no end to decline. They are measures that the Government should be ashamed to send to Brussels, let alone put before the British people. They should be rejected, and we shall vote against them tonight.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: When Labour Members forced the Government to accept the amendment that led to this debate, Conservative Members had the vague idea that they meant to do something constructive with the debate on the Government's convergence plans. But they obviously just wanted an insurance policy. They know that their procedural expertise is a little lacking from time to time, so they wanted an extra opportunity to have the same old familiar, boring rant that we have heard several times already on this subject.
When one of the biggest issues in British politics—how Britain should conduct itself in the debate on European monetary union—is under discussion, it is disappointing that the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) should studiously avoid saying anything of consequence on the subject. Moreover, we are united in our total perplexity at the fact that the Labour party has only just discovered that taxation can check economic recovery. It is a remarkable thing for Labour Members to learn. They obviously did not know it at the last general election.
When the hon. Member for Oxford, East talks of social protection, he means his union friends in work, rather than those who are out of work. The best social protection that any economy can offer its people is a job. We are absolutely united on the fact that we now have falling unemployment, lower unemployment than the EC average and are leading the European Community in the jobs stakes.
On social cohesion, let us look at some of the socialist Governments running other European countries. Prime Minister Balladur is having to cope with chaos and dislocation in France; Spain is suffering from more than 20 per cent. unemployment; and there is almost total chaos in Italy. If one is looking for social cohesion, one need look no further than this country as a good example of social protection, jobs and economic success.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Apart from the brilliance of Ministers, of which we are all aware, does not my hon. Friend think that Britain's splendid achievement within Europe may be because we were chucked out of the exchange rate mechanism, unlike the others?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend leads me to my next point. Part of the ingredient of our success in achieving falling unemployment is the fact that we were thrown out of the exchange rate mechanism. I use the words "thrown out" advisedly because they were used by the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). We were then able to pursue policies that were in this country's interests and to set the economic agenda according to our domestic monetary


conditions, not according to an external discipline that had become inappropriate for the circumstances in which we found ourselves. That important point is pertinent to this debate which, I remind the hon. Member for Oxford, East, is meant to be about convergence.
Why do we want convergence? What is so axiomatically good about it? Our economy has improved markedly since we made a conscious decision to let it diverge from those of our European partners. The treaty on European union contains an obligation to converge, which has been put there for political rather than economic reasons. People have a political agenda that they want to achieve in Europe and the economy is the tool with which they want to achieve it.
Amendment (a), tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, talks of many supposed failings in the Government's economic policies. But if the Opposition were ever in government and took us into a single currency—their espoused policy—and did away with the opt-out which the Prime Minister attempted to negotiate at Maastricht, they would abolish the very means to deal with the problems which they think they can cope with better.

Mr. Rowe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making an intelligent and helpful speech. Does he agree that, while there are manifest short-term economic advantages in our being divergent from the present state of Europe, in the long term, political differences throw all economic advance off course? That has been demonstrated at least twice this century—between 1914 and 1918 and between 1939 and 1945. It makes a great deal of sense to have the twin track of a political and an economic agenda.

Mr. Jenkin: I agree that we need a twin-track agenda to ensure that we have a strong defence policy, coupled with clear foreign, economic and trade policies that bind us together. But it is trade that binds the interests of our nations together. The causes of both the first and second world wars were as much about protectionism as anything else.
To impose a single currency upon the diverse nations in Europe is a different proposition. In imposing a single currency, one imposes a uniform economic discipline, but the political characteristics of each of the member states are very different. They have their own priorities, geographical characteristics and trading partners. France tends to trade with French-speaking countries, Britain tends to trade with English-speaking countries. A single currency does not automatically lead to the cohesion of Europe.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will my hon. Friend consider convergence in relation to a single currency? We do not necessarily have to pursue convergence. We could allow countries that naturally converge to do so and adopt a multi-speed approach to the concept of a single currency, rather than following the politically dominated, forced agenda, which is essentially part of the treaty.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right, and he directs me to the subject that I wanted to raise: the definition of convergence. Many of my hon. Friends think that convergence means having less than 3 per cent. public sector deficit and less than 60 per cent. public debt ratio,

low inflation and low long-term interest rates. Those are not articles of convergence, but four objectives that politicians have decided it would be interesting to achieve.

Mr. Duncan Smith: A wish list.

Mr. Jenkin: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right—it is a wish list.
Convergence under a single currency would require imposing the same monetary policy and the same interest rates regardless of the circumstances in each of the member states. In the United States, where there is a single currency, there is a single interest rate, and a single financial, fiscal and monetary discipline. But that does not solve the problems of economic divergence in the United States. When the motor industry in Chicago and Detroit is booming, oil in Texas can be bust and silicon chips booming in California. One has to have massive fiscal transfers to pay for the discrepancies between the different parts of the economic unit.
The United Kingdom has a single currecy, but a widely divergent economic performance. We must pay for wide disparities in public expenditure—which is 18 per cent. per head higher in Scotland and 41 per cent. higher in Northern Ireland—to maintain a cohesive economic unit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because we care about our country, that's why. How much more would we have to pay in taxes to maintain cohesion and convergence between all the various member states of the Community, given all the economic differences between them?

Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend is becoming so obsessed with the prospect of a single currency—to which Maastricht does not commit this country—that he forgets that the Maastricht convergence criteria actually constitute rather good Tory principles of public finance management. In the event that other countries observe them better than we do, given that the European Community is a single capital market, there will be fairly massive transfers that will not benefit this country.

Mr. Jenkin: First, the treaty on European union obliges us to converge in the run-up to a single currency. Secondly, if it is virtuous to have a 3 per cent. public sector deficit ratio, why have we not had one for the past few years? The Maastricht treaty was negotiated at the end of 1991.
The answer is that this country decided that it was politically expedient—and, indeed, beneficial to its economy—to run rather a large deficit. We decided to make that political choice. We would like to run a balanced budget; we would like to run a surplus. But it is for the House and the Government—both accountable to the British people—to decide what is best; it is not for the European Commission, in its wisdom, to decide when and how we should apply the convergence criteria.
If we are talking about convergence, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) to read the treaty. It is about multilateral surveillance; it is about being told off by the Commission, not when we in this House think action is inappropriate but when the Commission thinks it is. My hon. Friend is committed to the idea of convergence and a single currency for a political reason; his is a political objective. I am as internationalist as he is, but we choose to achieve our aims in different ways.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend has mentioned the public sector borrowing requirement. Does he agree that the current £50 billion is largely a result of the fact that,


because we remained in the exchange rate mechanism for an intolerably long time, the cost of social security payments and housing benefits, and a range of additional public expenditure, was heaped on the British people? Consequently, we are in the economic mess represented by the Red Book that we have before us.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I am not prepared to go over old ground that is accepted by a great many people in the country.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I think that I must press on.
I have made my argument as clear as possible. The pursuit of convergence is a very expensive business: that is why there are structural and cohesion funds. We must pay for convergence, and it is the northern states that will have to slow down their economic growth to pay for disparities throughout the European Community.
I shall vote for the report, because I voted for the Budget; but the fact of its submission proves that monetary union is still happening. The idea that it has been stopped in its tracks by the collapse of the initial strategy must be discounted. The documents are beginning to flood out of the Commission. The strict convergence criteria were meant by some to make sure that monetary union never took place, but now the criteria turn out to be a little more malleable than we had thought. The goalposts are being moved.
The two documents about legislation on convergence—it is interesting to note that the treaty is giving rise to draft legislation on that already—try to define the 3 per cent. borrowing ratio and the 60 per cent. public debt ratio, because each country has a different definition of these elements. Goodness only knows how the Italians and Greeks define them. No figures for previous years' performance is offered in the documents.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The words have different meanings.

Mr. Jenkin: As my hon. and learned Friend says. they do. The Commission has a clear agenda and is starting to manipulate these definitions for its own purposes so that it can move back towards economic and monetary union, with all the expense that convergence implies.
Conservative Members can unite behind the agenda articulated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his article in The Economist of 20 September:
All over Europe, what are people worrying about? Not to reduce the number of currencies but to increase the number of jobs.
I commend that comment to the Minister.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister is a superbly conscientious man when offering assurances to the House. I hope tonight that before he gives us any more reassurances he will reflect on some of the others that the House has been given recently.
We were told in the debates on the exchange rate mechanism that it would bring growth and stability; we all know that it brought about a shambles. Last year, we were told that the general agreement on tariffs and trade round would lead to a great reform of the common agricultural policy; now we are throwing so much money at the farmers that they are positively embarrassed by it.
Something significant is happening tonight. For the first time in our history, we are going to submit our Budget plans and forecasts to the Commission, so that the Council can look at them and in turn tell us its thoughts on what we and others are doing. It will demand a great deal of information. It will monitor economic developments in each member state, carry out regular assessments and suggest detailed rules and recommendations.
All these recommendations will be directed to what the Commission thinks is the answer to our problems—to aim at this 3 per cent. figure. I know that Britain is doing terribly well compared with the other member states, but that is because we were thrown out of the ERM. The Minister, I know, is sometimes a little suspicious of our figures, so I took the trouble to get some independent figures from the Library. The Library informs me that if Britain adopted the 3 per cent. rule here and now—the basis of the EC's proposals—income tax would be increased by 23p in the pound. If the Minister did not like that he could, alternatively, impose VAT on everything at 34 per cent.

Mr. Dorrell: I thank my hon. Friend for that research. As he will know, however, because he is an assiduous reader of the documents, a proper reading of the excessive deficit provisions of the treaty shows that they do not require the United Kingdom or any other state to secure the 3 per cent. overnight. The treaty obliges us to endeavour to avoid excessive deficits, which it defines as 3 per cent. of GDP.
The document before the House outlines how the Government, chiefly for our own domestic reasons, do intend to reduce our public sector borrowing requirement to below 3 per cent. The Red Book shows that we will achieve that objective in 1996–97. I am sure that my hon. Friend, for reasons on which we both agree, will support the Government in delivering that objective. No suggestion is made in the treaty or elsewhere that we should seek to do that overnight.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am terribly sorry, but I have read what article 104C says about 3 per cent. These are specific aims. In fairness, Britain can receive only recommendations, strong letters and instructions, but if other member states do not do what they are told they can be fined, asked to put unlimited sums on deposit at no interest and have the facilities of the European investment bank withdrawn.
The Minister said that this does not have to be done overnight. That is perfectly true—as long as we can give a tale to the Commission and to the Council and can say, "We are terribly sorry that we are above 3 per cent. but here are our plans to reduce it."

Mr. Budgen: Not only can we be subject to such criticism and blackmail from our foreign governors but we are also likely to have great difficulty in raising money on international markets if we have been subject to an adverse report from what many people regard as people who control large sums of foreign money.

Sir Teddy Taylor: How right my hon. Friend is. Reports will be published in which the Council arid Commission will say, "We think that the Government are making a mess of things." We would know that that is untrue. We know that we have brilliant Treasury Ministers who are doing a fantastic job. I am sure that the same would apply to all Governments, but if the Commission


says, "We think that the Government are heading for disaster because they are borrowing far too much money and their economic policies are crazy," what effect will that have on our stability as a nation and on how people regard us?

Mr. Peter Hardy: I do not wish to use the same pejorative words as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), but if the EC wishes Britain to converge, is it not reasonable to expect the Commission to assist Britain to do so? Does the hon. Gentleman believe that Britain is so assisted if the Commission allows the continuation of the situation in my area, where there is enormous anxiety about the survival of probably the finest engineering steel works in Europe, if not the world?
They are likely to be taken out because the Governments of Germany and Spain are determined to subsidise their industries to destroy British competition. Does the hon. Gentleman understand that, if the Commission does not help us, the possibility of convergence is made more difficult, and the effect on public expenditure of the destruction of a successful British industry makes the situation that Britain, and presumably South Yorkshire, faces a bitter one?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am well aware of the terrible problems facing the steel industry in south Yorkshire. Everyone is aware of the problems facing Britain. I ask the hon. Gentleman please to go and look at what the Council and the Commission have done. They have given permission for extra subsidies and the expansion of steel works in other countries on condition that we clobber ourselves. Do not blame the Government. The fact is that Europe is killing our steel industry, and the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) knows that. We have seen it happening and it is getting worse. For him to blame Tories, Labour or Liberals is a load of codswallop. Our steel industry is being deliberately killed because we are allowing extra subsidies and extra capacity in certain member states.
The Minister said that we do not have to increase VAT to 30 per cent. immediately. He said that the Commission will be kind. It will say, "As long as you are going the right way we will go along with you." I ask him to look at other member states of the EC. Are they going the right way with their borrowing? Every single figure shows that the massive borrowing of EC countries, but not Britain, is getting worse almost every day.
I ask the Minister to read today's edition of that splendid newspaper The Guardian, which reports that Germany now has more than 4 million unemployed and that the total went up by 340,000 last month. What will be the impact of that increase on Germany's overspending and borrowing? The same is happening in Spain and Italy. I mentioned our excessive problem, but in Greece the figure is 15·4 per cent. It is my calculation, not the Library's, that if we had to conform to the 3 per cent. target, we should be required to increase income tax to 23s 4d in the pound, which would be difficult to maintain.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend recollect that in Spain, despite the vast amounts made available to it in the form of subsidies—including the £108 billion over the next few years that was agreed at Edinburgh in 1992 under our

presidency—37 per cent. of all people under the age of 25 are unemployed? That is why Spain has a general strike. It is an indictment of the way in which the Community is going, and what is happening in Germany will happen in this country.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister is a sensible chap and I appeal to him to consider what the EC is doing to its member states. He should not listen to the Foreign Office chaps but should examine the figures. Spain has mass unemployment despite mass aid. Costs to industry and commerce are increasing and Europe is unable to compete because of the crazy CAP and trade protection. Massive borrowing is also a factor in Europe's problems.
The House is well aware that things are going well in Britain, but what about interest rates? When considering convergence, the Minister should examine the figures for borrowing among the European member states and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Dykes) should examine the European investment bank. The main sources of loans are the Arab countries which, sadly, do not have so much money now because of the price of oil—even the Saudis are paying their debts in instalments—and the Japanese, who are lending less. Unfortunately, the ever-increasing borrowing will soon meet non-available lending, which will have a pretty devastating effect on interest rates in Europe.
Please, will the Minister let himself be told what is happening? We tabled an amendment asking that the House of Commons be told what instructions or advice is given to member states. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West cares to listen, I recommend that he read paragraph 9 on page 20 of the treaty which states that the Commission will tell the Government what it thinks they should do but that it will not tell anyone else. Communication will be secret and private. If Britain is to be told what to do, surely the Government should at least inform the House. Is that asking too much?
If the Minister has to proceed with what I believe to be another lunatic Euro-plan which will create more unemployment, misery and problems, I hope that he will at least promise to inform the House of any instructions or advice given by the EC to the Treasury. If other member states are told that fines are to be imposed and that they have to deposit money, why should not the Government tell us that, too?
Article 103 of the treaty states that economic policy is now of common concern. I therefore appreciate the fact that the control by the House of economic policy is being taken away, bit by bit. It is disappearing, as is our control of other matters that we used to decide for ourselves. We should at least have the right to be told what is happening. The Minister should reflect on the 250,000 people who lost their jobs because of the criminal decision to join the exchange rate mechanism and on the fact that the Government told us that the treaty would bring growth and stability. Despite the additional transfer of power and the mad 3 per cent. policy, which can never work across Europe, I hope that he will tell the House when he receives secret advice on a bit of paper from the Council or the Commission.
Is it wrong to say that we should be told what is happening? That is all that the amendment asks. As the Foreign Secretary, who is someone who wants to tell everyone everything, is sitting on the Front Bench, I hope


that we shall be given the assurance that, when the private secret letters come he will tell the House, so that not only the Labour party and the Conservative party but, most important, the people of Britain know what is going on.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I had not intended to speak in the debate, because I did not want to intrude on the private grief of the Conservatives. However, having heard some of what Conservative Members have said, I felt that it might be helpful if someone made a contribution that at least drew attention to the reality of what is happening in Europe rather than to the peculiar obsession of the anti-European wing of the Conservative party.
European economies are becoming more integrated every day. Multinational companies are buying plants in other countries, in some cases with the support of those countries' Governments and in other cases against their wishes. That integration will continue regardless of whether this country is in the exchange rate mechanism, and regardless of whether there is a single European currency.
As that process continues, we in this country can be bystanders or we can be part of trying to shape the structures, organisations and institutions of the Europe that is being created. Unfortunately, our Government have chosen to be bystanders and to opt out of that process, but we shall still have the opportunity over the next decade to take our place in influencing those decisions. If we examine what the Maastricht treaty really says we realise that, regardless of whether the timetable is kept to, it is possible and even likely that by 1999 a substantial minority, perhaps even a majority, of the member countries will go forward to establish some kind of single currency.
Many people will say, "That does not matter to us. We are not influenced by it, and they can do it if they want. We want a two-speed Europe." But if our economy is to be dominated by the largest country in the European Union, with its power, its strength and its deutschmark zone, which will influence the policies of BMW and the other companies that want to invest and to build export markets outside the European Union, and if we say that we do not want any influence on that process, we should have to be strong enough outside on our own.

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Duncan Smith: rose—

Mr. Gapes: I shall give way in a minute.
We should have to be strong enough to resist those pressures. Our economy is already very weak, which is why our Government seem prepared to accept investment from anywhere, regardless of its long-term technological and industrial consequences, even if it is used to purchase the last remnants of the British motor vehicle industry.
The logic of the position of those who want to opt out and stay out is that we shall become, on the one hand, a kind of subcontractor, producing on the periphery of the European economy—the deutschmark economy—and, on the other, a kind of amusement park for American and Japanese tourists. That is the logic of the Government's policies, which will leave us with no manufacturing base or jobs and no industrial future. We must face that reality.

Mr. Jenkin: Although our economy is substantially smaller than that of western Germany, let alone that of the

united Germany, we are not left behind by Germany. On the contrary, the Bundesbank does 60 per cent. of its bond trading and 90 per cent. of its foreign exchange dealing in London. We need be no more left behind if we stay outside the single currency than Hong Kong is left behind by China.

Mr. Gapes: That is an interesting parallel. Hong Kong is about to be unified with China in 1997 and lose its unique position. Germany has just gone through the most traumatic process of unification. It has also taken huge numbers of German refugees from central and eastern Europe and refugees from the former Soviet Union. Also, it has been recently reported that the east German economy is growing. The east German employment rate is no longer the major problem. The major problem it faces is the adjustment to the west German economy and to the process of the west European economy.
I suspect that in five or 10 years' time, the 80 million-strong Germany will be a powerful, united economy. No other former Warsaw pact or former COMECON country is in anywhere near the same shape, despite the fact that they have not had the serious problems with which the German economy has had to deal.
The basic position of that German economy is far stronger than the British economy. If we had had to take 5 million or 6 million people from Hong Kong and had had to deal with unification with a backward economy which had been run down over many years, the British economy would not have been able to cope. The Germans are having great difficulty, but I have no doubt that, in future, they will emerge in a much better position than Britain, France or any other west European country could possibly have managed.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gapes: In a moment, but not now. It is a myth to say—

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gapes: No, not yet. The hon. Gentleman may be my neighbour, but I am not giving way.
It is a myth to say that the German economy is falling apart and that it is in terrible trouble. It has difficulties with unification, but it is coming through it.
In 1999, the German economy will be the motor force behind some sort of single European currency. When I spoke a few weeks ago to five Christian Democrat Members of Parliament—from the sister party of the British Conservatives in the European People's party—they told me and my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ms Quin) that the policies of the British Labour party were much closer to their policies than those of their supposed friends in the Conservative party. [Interruption.] They said that they believed that they could work with us in government, but that they would have great difficulties working with the British Conservatives.
A few days ago, I met some French politicians, led by Giscard D'Estaing, who were meeting members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. They made it clear that the French, including the Gaullists, the socialists and UDF members, saw moves towards economic and monetary union and a single currency as going ahead. That is despite the referendum in France. They attributed the


narrowness of that result to the unpopularity of President Mitterrand and the domestic unpopularity of that Government.
If the Dutch are moving that way, if the Germans continue to move that way, and if the French, across the political spectrum and including the Conservative party's supposed allies in the European People's party and the majority of its Gaullist friends, move that way, where is Britain? It is nowhere. It is sitting on the sideline. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is here."] Yes, it may be here but why is it not over there in Europe as well?
I shall conclude—[Interruption.] I shall not conclude, but I shall make two more points.
The British Conservative party is in a complete shambles. To preserve the pretence of unity, it has a drafting committee for a European election manifesto; it brings forward the sublime and the ridiculous and puts them on the same committee. It will be interesting to see what kind of manifesto the committee comes up with. Will it be the same manifesto as that of the European People's party—a manifesto that talks about federalism and a single currency? Will the British Conservatives be able to launch their European campaign saying proudly, "We and our European partners all agree on these objectives"? We must wait and see.
We in the Labour party know that, with our allies and partners in the party of European socialists and with those in many of the Christian Democrat parties in Europe who also believe in jobs, investment, social justice and the social chapter, we will be able to create the kind of Europe that provides employment and social justice for our people and for the people of the rest of Europe and contributes to peace, security and justice in the world.

Mr. John Biffen: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) most warmly. He gave us a superb exposition of the Labour's future view of the Community. I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for conveying to us fraternal greetings from the European People's party—although a little disconcerted that the Foreign Secretary left his place on the Front Bench shortly afterwards.
The hon. Gentleman has focused sharply on a philosophical divide. It is a genuine divide, and it is an irritating divide, because it does not follow the normal fault lines of party politics. Conservative Members had the opportunity to study the faces of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends as he made his speech, and they did not give the impression of unanimous glee.

Mr. Radice: I did.

Mr. Biffen: Of course, I almost felt that my hon. Friend.—I say hon. Friend because he is my pair—was the author of this advanced document of Euro-socialism.
One one side of the divide, which is a genuine one, are those who think of politics as a mechanical process and who are attracted by the whole proposal of convergence, because they see it following what is to them unmistakeably a predetermined path—albeit not in iron terms—with all the resources of Government being dedicated to making it come about. On the other side are those who are, by contrast, evolutionary in their approach

to political problems and above all to European problems, who, by their lights, are no less communautaire than their opponents.
I think that I take a more Tory view of life. These are great ambitions, and they are ambitions much more realistically undertaken without any clear view of the timing of the objectives. One is perfectly entitled also to ask whether the objectives of uniformity and convergence are a proven success. There is a case to be made for European economies with a degree of diversity. At times, when one is coming out of a recession, a strong economy often helps by being a lead economy. I adopt a neutral approach to that question, therefore.
I do, however, observe that the European Community is an intensely diverse organisation. The nation states of Europe have a profound history, which is stronger than economics, and that diversity will be intensified by the enlargement of the Community to which hon. Members on both sides of the House are committed.
Let me come to what is perhaps a more pedestrian view. The present view—the Delors view and the view of that great roll call of political parties to which the hon. Member for Ilford, South subjected us, which I respect as part of a dirigiste tradition that is well established on the continent—is that convergence is something to be brought about by Government involvement, which cannot be left to itself to happen; that is a rather sort of Gladstonian liberal view no longer shared by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), but still held in affection by myself.
The European Commission looks at the situation and asks who will provide the resources to give real impetus to the process on the time scale of convergence. Recently, the general view was that it would be the Federal Republic of Germany. We can only observe that the federal republic—the united Germany—is in immense difficulty.
I say that without any trace of satisfaction. A Germany in turmoil is a danger for Europe. If we look at the priorities that confront German domestic politicians today, will German resources be used in the Mediterranean or to the east. Those resources must go to the east partly because there are economic opportunities there, but, above all, the political situation there is so fragile that that must be the first call on German interests.
What will happen? There will be a redistribution of the obligation and the privilege to help to finance this great politically contrived enterprise. We shall move more into the role of a contributor. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) spoke warmly about the advantage that he hoped his constituency would get from this system. That is what we all hope and believe. However, the likelihood of Britain being a recipient of largesse from Greece or Portugal can be put to one side.
I shall conclude on this point. It is a technical point, but it runs to the heart of the difference. It is one of measurement. If politicians are given access to resources, the ability to measure equitably so that the judgment will be respected by the population at large is crucial.
There is no prospect of resources in western Europe being equitably assessed and managed. We view the statistical basis on which we work with some unease. Certainly, Sir Claus Moser, who is possibly in a position to make these judgments, has his anxieties about the quality of our statistics. But we should think of Greek and Portuguese statistics and those that will greet us from the east.
If we look at the protocol governing these matters in the Community documents, we see that the Commission will be charged with putting together the information on which decisions will be taken. One cannot go to the European people, who will justifiably be uneasy, on the basis of central allocations, basically because they do not trust other people's figures. It may seem a modest and technical point in this Chamber, but hon. Members should listen to the litany of disbelief in their constitutions about the equitable way in which Community resources are being distributed.
If we go down this semi-mechanical route, we will be storing immense trouble if there cannot be as much evident justice about European budgeting as there is about national budgeting. It is against that background that one could well have a growing disillusion, which, far from fostering European partnership, will do the reverse.

Mr. William Cash: Following that speech will be difficult. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) referred to the precise point that Labour Members have completely missed—that the convergence criteria are deflationary; they are intended to be deflationary, and therefore will increase unemployment. It is no consolation to hon. Members on both sides of the House to know that the level of unemployment in Europe has risen to 17 million. The European Commission admitted last August that economic and monetary union is bound to increase unemployment significantly throughout Europe. Why on earth should we go through the charade of a debate such as this on the convergence criteria when everybody knows that they cannot work, and that they must not be allowed to work? It escapes me completely.
As I pointed out earlier, the statistics themselves are riddled with holes. They do not include eastern Germany as part of the statistical base for the convergence criteria as devised.

Mr. Andrew Smith: The hon. Gentleman is evidently opposed to the convergence process, and convinced that the figures are deeply flawed. He and his hon. Friends have made strong arguments that Britain should not be taking part. Will he take the opportunity tonight not to collaborate with the submission of the information, by not voting for the Government motion?

Mr. Cash: I have made it perfectly clear to the Whip that I have not the slightest intention of voting for the motion. I would not dream of doing so. I think that it is absolute rubbish, and the House should not pay the slightest attention to this ridiculous report.
I will go further. I was deeply concerned to hear the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at Johns Hopkins university on 29 November last year. My right hon. Friend stated that, whatever one's view on the steps to be taken after stage 2 of economic and monetary union, everyone was agreed on the importance of better economic co-ordination and greater convergence in the European economies.
The plain fact is that it is not going to work, and it will induce unemployment. I will simply conclude on this point: what satisfaction can it give the people of this country to engage in a policy which is guaranteed to throw our people out of jobs?

Mr. Dorrell: It is always a pleasure to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). The problem for the House this evening is the one to which I drew attention in my opening remarks. The motion asks the House to approve again a document that it has approved many times before, and to approve the contents of the Red Book because of a clause that was written into the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which dealt with the Maastricht treaty.
The question for the House was whether we should endorse the contents of the Red Book. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) sought to address that question in his speech, but, as my hon. Friend the member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) rightly said, the result was a boring rant and familiar claptrap.
The hon. Gentleman alleged that the plan set out in the Budget presented no prospects of growth, jobs or improving living standards. He was apparently blind to the fact that unemployment has fallen during the past 12 months, and that the growth rate during the same period has been 2 per cent. There are clear prospects of growth being sustained. That is the view not just of the Government, but of almost all independent commentators.

Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend also accept that the improvement in our economic performance has come about by our diverging from our European partners on a number of key measures, not least the exchange rate?

Mr. Dorrell: One of the key thinks which has been made possible the economic recovery, and which will continue to underwrite it, is the fact that we have inflation under better control in Britain today than for 25 years. The choice which the Government made to insist on facing down the inflationary pressures which were present in the British economy at the end of the 1980s was one of the key factors which has made recovery possible. I did agree with my hon. Friend's characterisation of the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, East.
The House then had a real treat from the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), who displayed a hitherto unsuspected skill in the art of dispassionate and forensic analysis of the position in which the different countries of Europe have found themselves. He offered us, I suspect, the speech of a graduate of the Prescott school of rhetoric. The whole House enjoyed his speech, even if we were, with great respect to him, not much the wiser when he sat down.
On the other hand, the majority of my hon. Friends who spoke recognised a sterile debate when they saw one. They understood that the House had already approved the document several times. There is not a great deal of point in reciting yet again familiar arguments from the two sides of the House. That is why I so much welcomed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He presented a view around which all Conservative Members can unite—the proposition that the proper way in which to see institutions and policies develop is to insist on an evolutionary approach to politics.
The view expressed by my right hon. Friend was one of the key arguments that I advanced in the speech which the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was kind enough to quote in extenso. It was the reason why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister insisted at Maastricht that we should not sign up to an artificial timetable for


economic and monetary union, and that if, at any stage in the future, we chose to join a European single currency, that was a decision that should be made at the time when it was to be put into effect, based on the circumstances prevailing at that time.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North that that corresponds precisely with the evolutionary approach to such problems that he says—I agree with him—we should adopt.
My right hon. Friend also stressed—again, I agree with him—that, in deciding whether we should proceed with a particular form of evolution, we should take account of what Alan Clark would describe as the actualite. Part of that actualitd in the evolution of European politics, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, is the current position in the German economy which is the result of reunification.
Another thing that he might have mentioned, but did not, is the result of the possible enlargement of the Community. All those factors should be taken into account in the way in which the Community evolves. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister insisted at Maastricht that we should not commit ourselves to a long-term plan for the Community which built in no flexibility to allow it to react to events as they evolved.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Financial Secretary confirm that, under the provisions of the Maastricht treaty and the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government are obliged to notify the Community that they do not intend to proceed to stage 3 before the Community proceeds to stage 3? Have the Goverment yet given notification that they do not intend to move to stage 3? If not, when does the Financial Secretary anticipate that it will be communicated to the Community?

Mr. Dorrell: No communication of that nature has yet been given to the Community. If it is given, it will be given at the time—

Mr. Smith: If.

Mr. Dorrell: As we have made clear from the beginning, we are anxious to keep the option open, observing precisely the principle that my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North expounded.
Therefore, the basis exists on which every Conservative Member can proceed in unity. It was set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North, and it was endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North when he referred to the article written by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in The Economist, which advanced a imilar approach to the problem. That is the basis on which we shall approach the future of European economic and monetary questions.
The question for the House this evening is whether the Government's plans set out in the document represent a proper way to proceed to deliver economic recovery and improving living standards. The Government's view, as the House well knows, is that sustainable, non-inflationary growth requires us to observe key disciplines of sound money and sound public finance. We do that primarily and principally because that is the only way in which to deliver the improving living standards that are the shared ambition

of every member of the Conservative party. It is on that basis that I commend the contents of the Red Book to the House and ask its support for the motion before us.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 239.

Division No. 117]
[12.35 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dorrell, Stephen


Aitken, Jonathan
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Den


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Duncan, Alan


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Amess, David
Dunn, Bob


Arbuthnot, James
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Eggar, Tim


Ashby, David
Elletson, Harold


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkins, Robert
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Faber, David


Baldry, Tony
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bates, Michael
Fishburn, Dudley


Batiste, Spencer
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
French, Douglas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Sir Peter


Booth, Hartley
Gale, Roger


Bosweil, Tim
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowden, Andrew
Garnier, Edward


Bowis, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, M. (Brigg &Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hague, William


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butcher, John
Hannam, Sir John


Butler, Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Churchill, Mr
Heald, Oliver



Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hendry, Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hicks, Robert


Coe, Sebastian
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Congdon, David
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Conway, Derek
Horam, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David (Skipton &Ripon)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Day, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)






Jenkin, Bernard
Richards, Rod


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Johnston, Sir Russell
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, Sir David
Shersby, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sims, Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Soames, Nicholas


Legg, Barry
Speed, Sir Keith


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spink, Dr Robert


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spring, Richard


Lidington, David
Sproat, Iain


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


MacKay, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Maclean, David
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sykes, John


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mans, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marland, Paul
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mates, Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thurnham, Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Merchant, Piers
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Trend, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Trotter, Neville


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moss, Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Needham, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walden, George


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Nicholls, Patrick
Wallace, James


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Ward, John


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waterson, Nigel


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Page, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Paice, James
Whittingdale, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Ann


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pawsey, James
Willetts, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilshire, David


Pickles, Eric
Wolfson, Mark


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wood, Timothy


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Yeo, Tim


Powell, William (Corby)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rathbone, Tim



Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rendel, David
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Renton, Rt Hon Tim






NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fraser, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Fyfe, Maria


Ainger, Nick
Galloway, George


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Gapes, Mike


Allen, Graham
Garrett, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
George, Bruce


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Gerrard, Neil


Armstrong, Hilary
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Austin-Walker, John
Godsiff, Roger


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barnes, Harry
Gordon, Mildred


Barron, Kevin
Graham, Thomas


Battle, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bayley, Hugh
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bell, Stuart
Grocott, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gunnell, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Hain, Peter


Benton, Joe
Hall, Mike


Bermingham, Gerald
Hanson, David


Berry, Dr. Roger
Hardy, Peter


Betts, Clive
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boateng, Paul
Henderson, Doug


Boyes, Roland
Heppell, John


Bradley, Keith
Hill, Keith (Streatham)



Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hoey, Kate


Burden, Richard
Home Robertson, John


Byers, Stephen
Hood, Jimmy


Caborn, Richard
Hoon, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hoyle, Doug


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hutton, John


Clapham, Michael
Ingram, Adam


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clelland, David
Jamieson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Coffey, Ann
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jowell, Tessa


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Keen, Alan


Corston, Ms Jean
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cousins, Jim
Khabra, Piara S.


Cox, Tom
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Cummings, John
Leighton, Ron


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Terry


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Litherland, Robert


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Livingstone, Ken


Dalyell, Tam
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Darling, Alistair
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davidson, Ian
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAllion, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McCartney, Ian


Denham, John
Macdonald, Calum


Dewar, Donald
McFall, John


Dixon, Don
McKelvey, William


Dobson, Frank
Mackinlay, Andrew


Donohoe, Brian H.
McLeish, Henry


Dowd, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Eagle, Ms Angela
McNamara, Kevin


Eastham, Ken
McWilliam, John


Enright, Derek
Madden, Max


Etherington, Bill
Mahon, Alice


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mandelson, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Marek, Dr John


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Flynn, Paul
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Martlew, Eric


Foulkes, George
Maxton, John






Meacher, Michael
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Michael, Alun
Rowlands, Ted


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Ruddock, Joan


Milburn, Alan
Sedgemore, Brian


Miller, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Morgan, Rhodri
Short, Clare


Morley, Elliot
Simpson, Alan


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Skinner, Dennis


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mudie, George
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mullin, Chris
Soley, Clive


Murphy, Paul
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Spellar, John


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Hara, Edward
Stevenson, George


Olner, William
Stott, Roger


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Straw, Jack


Parry, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Patchett, Terry
Tipping, Paddy


Pendry, Tom
Turner, Dennis


Pickthall, Colin
Vaz, Keith


Pike, Peter L.
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Walley, Joan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wareing, Robert N


Prescott, John
Watson, Mike


Primarolo, Dawn
Wicks, Malcolm


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Radice, Giles
Wilson, Brian


Randall, Stuart
Winnick, David


Raynsford, Nick
Wise, Audrey


Redmond, Martin
Wray, Jimmy


Reid, Dr John
Wright, Dr Tony


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)



Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Tellers for the Noes:


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Alan Meale.


Rooker, Jeff



Rooney, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved.
That this House approves the Government's assessment as set out in section 2,4 and 5 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.

Orders of the Day — Nursing (Performance-related Pay)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mrs. Alice Mahon: First, may I place on record my disgust at the Government's refusal to honour the recommendations of the pay review body for nurses by expecting efficiency savings to fund it?
In December 1993, the Department of Health put forward proposals to introduce performance-related pay for nurses, midwives and health visitors. The Department's guidelines for performance-related pay may be issued, but it will be up to local employers to decide whether to pay extra. There will be no jointly agreed rules or guarantee of payment. Trusts will be free to choose any performance measure they like.
As a result, the management side of the nurses' negotiating body proposed that local employers should be allowed to introduce performance-related pay based on the
achievement of increased productivity and/or improved efficiency".
I firmly believe that to go down such a road would be a disaster for the finest nursing profession in the world.
First, we should examine the advantages of the current system for setting nurses' pay through a national salary scheme, determined by an independent review body following representations from employers, Government and unions. A national salary for nursing staff has been in place ever since the foundation of the national health service. It was brought in to replace the chaotic confusion in the pre-war arrangements, when pay was determined by a local hospital board and local authorities.
The system of national pay has been very useful and the pay review body introduced in 1983 has also worked well, so nursing has enjoyed good industrial relations and stability. But, as everybody knows, the Government's motto for the public sector is, "If it is working well and workers seem to be satisfied and are benefiting, let's wreck it"
That is what the internal market, of which performance-related pay is a creature, will do.
Tonight I want to make the case for a national salary for nurses—that case is moral, economic and social. Is it fair that a nurse in my constituency of Halifax should be paid less than nurses in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Preston (Mrs. Wise), for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) when the jobs that those nurses perform are identical?
The clinical grading system can deal with differences in work between areas of the country, and the London allowance is intended to offset the high costs of living in the capital. But the Minister should say tonight whether he believes that other variations in pay are justifiable, particularly if they are based on factors outside nurses' control, such as local unemployment or the financial, or otherwise, success of the trust. The morale of nurses has never been lower. Does the Minister seriously intend to make it worse by allowing the crazy system to go ahead?
In economic terms, a national salary makes it easier for nurses, especially qualified ones, to move around the country. It avoids the prospect of competition for staff between hospitals and is simple to administer. Why interfere with that system? Why not leave it alone when it has been proved to work so well?
I am sponsored by UNISON—I do not receive a penny for myself, but money is paid to the Labour party. My union and the Royal College of Nursing have undertaken research. In a report on performance-related pay and United Kingdom nursing commissioned by the Royal College of Nursing, and written by Mark Thompson and James Buchan, the Institute of Manpower Studies concluded that there was no reliable evidence that PRP improved employee motivation and some evidence that it could be demotivating. It also concluded that there was no evidence that performance-related pay helped to retain good performers. It stated that there was no evidence that performance-related pay improved the performance of the organisation.
In an earlier report, the Institute of Manpower Studies considered performance-related pay in both the public and private sector. It looked at 20 different organisations. Its conclusions were:
Few studies have shown any link between PRP and productivity and the claims for PRP were found wanting in practice".
Most people—certainly, most health workers and anybody with any knowledge of the health service—would agree that proposals for performance-related pay for nursing would be bad for patient care. It would be harmful if nursing were to become more financially driven, competitive and preoccupied with meaningless, if measurable, targets. Nurses are already sinking under excessive paperwork as the new market-led approach takes over. Nursing is not a production-line process or a service providing a profit. Performance-related pay would prove an extremely dangerous experiment that could seriously harm patient care.
In other parts of the public sector, performance-related pay is not the success that it is claimed to be. There is evidence in the Inland Revenue that the introduction of performance-related pay is leading to the demoralisation of staff. Surveys for British Telecom, much hailed by the Government as a success story, have found widespread resentment at unfairness in its operation, particularly where cash limits have been applied so that the numbers of staff who can qualify for higher levels of payment is not determined by their performance but by predetermined budget limits. I do not think that anybody doubts that the same would be true of the NHS.
A small number of trusts in the NHS have introduced schemes, but a survey in 1992 by NALGO, as it was then, found overwhelming dissatisfaction with performance-related pay for managers. PRP is not being introduced to support the NHS or the nurses. By imposing PRP linked to productivity, the Government hope to get nurses to fund their own pay increases well into the future. That is the real agenda; it has nothing to do with patient care of the care of nurses—and, of course, it involves many problems.
Recently, the Royal College of Nursing said:
One of the greatest difficulties with introducing PRP to nursing is determining the performance indicators to be used. There is a danger that easily quantifiable measures such as the number of patients treated will be used and that factors such as the ward environment, the financial resources available and, perhaps most importantly, the quality of care provided may be overlooked. Current job evaluation schemes introduced into the NHS are already giving rise to these concerns: they concentrate on recognition and reward of management responsibility without giving sufficient consideration to factors such as patient care and communication skills.
Will nurses find that they are pressurised into discharging patients too early, in order to meet productivity targets?
In Ayrshire and Arran trust, among others, there have been proposals for a system linking pay with attendance. Such a system would almost certainly put pressure on sick nurses. Imagine the consequences for a special care baby unit, or a maternity unit, if a nurse with influenza reported for duty.
Another crazy idea relates to throughput. I warn the Minister that nurses will not tolerate a system that encourages them to ignore the quality of care, and to push patients out of the door as quickly as possible. Linking patient discharge rates with pay could cause individuals to suffer; it could also conflict with the duty not to discharge patients until community services are available.
How could the throughput measure be applied to long-stay patients? In an excellent study, appropriately named "Nurses on the Production line", UNISON says:
Using patient throughput could lead to more productivity but worse care. In addition, at present no measures of readmission rates exist and one of the main dangers of using throughput would be that those patients discharged too quickly would simply be readmitted later with complications.
A development that is already under way—because of the national shortage of beds, especially acute beds—would be massively accelerated.
The Government must have devoted some thought to the proposal, given that they allowed the trusts and the director-managed units to go ahead on such a loose basis. Will there be a practice of including bed utilisation rates and bed occupancy rates? If so, how will it work in practice? Such matters are often beyond the control of individual nurses.
Surely, if patient discharge rates are linked to pay, treatment regimes are bound to be influenced. There must be an effect on the quality of treatment. This idea is dangerous nonsense, and I hope that the Minister will note the points that I have raised on behalf of nurses.
Another way of using performance-related pay is the method employed in the United States, where PRP is linked with performance appraisal. In the United Kingdom, the Homewood trust runs such a scheme, rating employees from "ordinary" to "outstanding"; there are four grades within the appraisal. Although most unions and staff organisations do not oppose appraisal, they object to a link between pay and appraisal. My union, UNISON, is on record as expressing the fear that staff will be less open if their pay suffers after they have discussed their weak points.
I believe that there are many problems to do with performance-related pay that the Government have not taken seriously enough. What criteria will be used; how objective will it be? Performance-related pay systems are usually related to the individual, but nursing, by its very nature, is a team-based job in which people rely on each other and work together for the good of the patients. How much will this system upset what is a life-saving service?
Experience of performance-related pay linked to appraisal schemes in other areas suggests that racial and sexual discrimination will be a major problem if the scheme is applied to nursing.
There are so many drawbacks that it is difficult to know which ones to pinpoint in this debate. The Government's proposals to impose these measures mut be resisted as hard as possible. The public, Members of Parliament and all decision-makers must fight this just as hard as the police:


fought the Sheehy plan. If we can get the issue on the political agenda, I am sure that the Government will back off as fast as they did when the police resisted Sheehy.
I appeal to all who may hear or read this debate, and to past and present patients and all hon. Members, to join me in praising the skills and commitment of nurses and in sympathising with them for the fraught time that they are having as they undergo some appalling changes to a market-led health care system. I appeal to everyone to condemn the scheme and to lobby the Government, to ensure that their thoughts on this dangerous and unnecessary experiment are put across to them.
This crackpot scheme deserves to be put in a hospital incinerator.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) for raising the topic of the proposed performance-related pay for nurses, because it gives me an opportunity to explain the importance that the Government attach to the development of performance-related pay in the public sector. How we take this forward for nurses, the largest staff group in the NHS, is very important to the success of our whole approach.
We want to extend the link between performance and rewards to all NHS staff groups, and to make it much more explicit. The Government's policy on rewarding performance in the NHS can be traced back to the 1989 White Paper "Working for Patients", which set out a programme of reform. One of the objectives of the changes subsequently made to the NHS was to provide greater satisfaction and rewards for those working in it who successfully respond to local needs and preferences.
The White Paper proposed that NHS trusts should be free to settle the pay of their staff. The Government's objective throughout the service is progressively to introduce greater flexibility in order to allow managers to relate to local labour markets and reward individual performance.
Performance rewards are not new in the NHS. By April 1994 it is expected that 95 per cent. of all hospital and community health services will be provided by trusts, employing 90 per cent. of all staff. Many trusts are now actively drawing up local reward strategies, with firm plans for their introduction this year. The Government's objective is to devolve pay bargaining to a local level, and we are examining how trusts may make more progress.
Evidence suggests that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Halifax said, trusts are using their pay freedoms responsibly and are thoroughly researching their overall strategies before deciding the best way forward. They are pursuing the general aim that a well-motivated and rewarded work force will enjoy greater job satisfaction and will improve standards of patient care.
In evidence to the review body last autumn, the Government stated our belief that the link between pay and performance should be achieved by linking a larger proportion of the pay bill to performance. Any overall increases in pay must of course be affordable on a basis similar to that in the civil service: in general, any increase in pay must be funded from efficiency improvements.
Against that background, the Health Department, in evidence to the review body, urged it to recommend only modest increases in remuneration nationally to leave maximum scope to encourage local bargaining on self-financing pay increases. Local NHS employees should be free to adopt performance schemes most relevant to their needs. Local schemes might include the introduction of multi-disciplinary group awards, which could also recognise individual contributions to team effort and individual performance where one person is clearly responsible for ensuring that a particular service target is achieved.
The review body, in its 1994 report published on 3 February, made it clear that it wanted to facilitate a significant step towards local pay determination and productivity bargaining. It supported the Government's wish to move towards locally devised performance-related pay schemes. The report further commented that by next year a framework would be established for effective local pay determination with clear prospects for achieving pay increases based on local achievements and needs. It said:
These are transitional arrangements for a transitional year. We would prefer not to make recommendations in this form next year. By that time we expect to see a framework established for effective local pay determination, with clear prospects for achieving pay increases based on local achievements and needs.
The review body was clear that its recommendations should not inhibit local productivity pay bargaining in any trusts that have prepared for this in 1994. It went on to say that had the discussions between parties at a national level and the preparations at local level been more advanced, it would have recommended an increase of 2 per cent. in national pay rates, with strong encouragement for local determination of increases beyond that.
We welcome the review body's enthusiasm for local determination of performance-related pay. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, commenting on the review body report, said:
I afford the highest priority to the early introduction of arrangements which will link a significant proportion of pay increases from next year to the performance of staff achieving improvements in local services.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: The Minister is carefully not defining performance. The main burden of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) was on the impossibility of satisfactorily defining performance in nursing work. Will he kindly address that point?

Mr. Sackville: The hon. Lady knows that we intend to leave employers to define how they wish to use this freedom. All employers in the private and public sectors must make their own assessments of the performance of their employees. It is absurd, although the hon. Members for Preston (Mrs. Wise) and for Halifax may not agree, to pretend that all employees have the same determination and commitment.
It is surely open to employers to assess their staff's performance, commitment and success in meeting targets and to use the freedom to reward them.

Mrs. Wise: What kind of targets?

Mr. Sackville: There are a number of ways in which employers can measure their employees' performance, and they do so in most professions. There is no reason to


exempt any profession from such a policy, no matter how unwelcome that might be to someone with the hon. Lady's political background.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I must declare that I am also sponsored by UNISON and receive no personal remuneration. The Minister is talking absolute rubbish and is not defining what he means by performance-related pay. The aim of the debate is to establish what criteria the Minister has in mind for the measuring of performance. He cannot leave it to the trusts or to people outside to decide; we want him to tell us so that the unions and work force in the hospitals know what he has in mind. Rather than abdicating his responsibility, he should give us an answer from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not going to attempt to prescribe to employers a set of rules on how they should assess their employees. Only they are capable of doing that. Assessments are carried out throughout the world of work. It is a ridiculous myth that in the public sector, with its rigid collective bargaining background, it is impossible for employers to assess their staff.
We understand that people do not work in the health service primarily for money. They work in the service for various reasons—they might wish to serve patients or they might get satisfaction from the work. That does not negate the idea that those who are able to demonstrate a high level of commitment and who are able to make a particular contribution should not be rewarded. We have every intention of ensuring that employers in the health service, like those in other spheres of activity, should have the freedom to assess employees, whether they be nurses or other NHS employees. I have no hesitation in commending that approach.
The hon. Member for Halifax gave a series of gloomy predictions about the effects of such a policy. She suggested that people would be measuring bed occupancy and trying to link pay to discharges. There is no reason for an employer to use his powers insensitively. It is perfectly possible for employers in the health service, as elsewhere, to assess which employees they believe especially deserve a higher level of performance-related pay. There was nothing in the hon. Lady's speech to deter me from that view. I commend the concept of performance-related pay in the NHS to the House.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I have listened carefully to the Minister's speech and I have about three minutes in which to speak. He has added nothing to the sum of our knowledge of this topic. He has not replied to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) was trying to extract from him some information about what people should consider important when measuring employers' peformance. He was prepared to rule out some measures—he said that there was no reason for insensitivity—but he was not prepared to say which measures were ruled in.
I have spent some time in hospital recently. I have been in wards for some fairly long stretches over the past few years and I have been able to sit and watch, and lie and listen, and hear conversations with nurses, doctors arid other people in the medical profession. My experience of being on a ward over a prolonged period—an experience that I understand that the Minister has never had—leads me to believe that it is not possible to measure the performance of a nurse fairly.
The only result of the policy will be to encourage resentment and jealousies—a feeling that some people are being preferred over others, and that, because certain friendships exist with hospitals and wards, favours are being given in the form of enhanced pay. The Minister will make some nurses feel that they are being badly treated. I can give him a copper-bottomed guarantee that he will undermine morale on the wards in hundreds of hospitals throughout the country if he continues along that route.
If the Minister wants to implement and impose local agreements for nurses, which my hon. Friends and I also oppose, that is another argument and another discussion. But when he insists on the introduction of some sort of measurement, he is beginning to meddle with the relationships that build up communities in wards and in hospitals—something that Ministers fail to understand.
The Minister need not take it from me; he can take it from the people in the profession. He should ask not the Tory doctors but the apolitical doctors, the senior nursing officers, the registrars, the nurses and the cleaners. The effects will work all the way through a hospital ward. People will see relationships that have been built up over decades at every level between professionals, and between people who are not professionals—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes past One o'clock.